As President Donald Trump moved Tuesday to give artificial intelligence a new name — “super intelligence” — Virginia Sen. Mark Warner warned that changing the terminology does nothing to address what he says is the far more consequential question confronting Washington: whether increasingly powerful artificial intelligence systems are advancing faster than the safeguards designed to control them.

“The companies building the most powerful AI systems are warning us that the technology is advancing faster than our safeguards,” Warner, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Tuesday. “The president’s response? To rename it and tell the companies developing it to regulate themselves.”

Trump announced Tuesday that he planned to formally replace “artificial intelligence” with “super intelligence” in federal government documents through an executive order, after previewing the terminology at the United Nations last week. Speaking at the launch of America.gov, the administration’s new AI-powered portal for federal information and services, Trump called “super intelligence,” or “S.I.,” the official name in the United States and said he would sign an executive order implementing the change.

America.gov itself represents how quickly artificial intelligence is moving from experimental technology into everyday government infrastructure. According to the General Services Administration, the platform combines information from more than 29,000 federal government websites and uses AI-enhanced search to provide a single gateway for Americans looking for federal services, benefits and information.

The administration also announced a voluntary agreement with major artificial-intelligence companies involving internal and external reviews of AI risks, part of a broader approach emphasizing American technological development and industry participation rather than the regulatory framework Warner is seeking.

Warner said Tuesday that the distinction is much more than a disagreement over terminology.

“Changing what we call artificial intelligence does nothing to address the very real risks that come with increasingly powerful AI systems,” Warner said.

The Virginia senator emphasized that he remains an advocate for American leadership in artificial intelligence but argued that leadership requires security requirements capable of keeping pace with increasingly powerful models.

“I believe deeply in the promise of AI and in America’s ability to lead the world in this technology,” Warner said. “But leadership also means making sure these systems are safe, secure, and remain under human control.”

Warner’s statement comes just five days after he joined Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) in introducing the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act of 2026, legislation that would establish enforceable security and testing requirements for the nation’s most advanced artificial-intelligence systems.

The legislation would establish a permanent Artificial Intelligence Safety Board within the Department of Commerce, bringing together representatives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce Department, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, National Security Agency and Treasury Department, along with independent technical experts.

Developers of qualifying frontier AI models would be required to provide the board access to those systems at least 45 days before public release, including model weights, configuration files, runtimes and software libraries needed to operate them.

The proposal reaches well beyond the consumer chatbots most Americans now associate with artificial intelligence.

It specifically addresses increasingly capable frontier models, including systems capable of discovering and exploiting software vulnerabilities without direct human prompting. Warner’s legislation would require the AI Safety Board to establish standards for evaluating those capabilities and securing the environments in which the models are tested.

Developers would be legally required to comply with applicable standards, with violations subject to civil penalties of as much as $250,000 per violation, per day.

The bill would also establish a national AI incident database, require companies to report serious safety and security incidents, establish secure federal testing environments and develop standards specifically governing increasingly autonomous AI agents.

Those standards would include something particularly important as artificial intelligence moves beyond answering questions and begins interacting with other computer systems: what information an autonomous AI agent can access, what tools it can use and how much authority it possesses.

Warner’s proposal calls for standards addressing identity, authentication, authorization, access to data and systems and differing levels of autonomy. Developers would also have to document an AI agent’s intended uses, authority boundaries, access to information and tools, known limitations and independent evaluation results where applicable.

The legislation specifically targets advanced systems exhibiting, or capable of being modified to exhibit, high levels of performance on tasks that could pose serious risks to national security, economic security or public health and safety.

Among the risks identified are AI systems facilitating cyberattacks, evading the control of their developers or operators, assisting in the development of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, or having their underlying model weights stolen or maliciously modified.

The warnings are not arriving in isolation.

On Sept. 21, Warner joined Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) in demanding that the Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence investigate reported failures involving artificial intelligence in U.S. military and intelligence operations.

Their letter cited public reports involving an AI-targeting platform that allegedly relied on outdated geospatial information during a kinetic strike in Minab, Iran, and a separate military interdiction operation that was aborted after AI-generated false information was included in disseminated U.S. intelligence. The senators asked that inspectors general receive unrestricted access to investigate the reported incidents.

That means the debate underway in Washington is no longer simply about whether artificial intelligence can write an email, generate a photograph or answer a question.

It is increasingly about what happens when artificial intelligence is connected to real systems, real information and real decisions.

That distinction is becoming more important as AI systems move into government operations, cybersecurity, national security and autonomous applications. America.gov itself demonstrates one side of that transition: artificial intelligence is now being placed between Americans and information drawn from tens of thousands of government websites.

Warner is arguing that the most powerful systems require enforceable safeguards before those capabilities increase further.

“There is bipartisan interest in Congress in getting this right,” Warner said Tuesday. “The technology is moving incredibly fast, and the risks are no longer theoretical.”

“The question is whether Washington is going to act before something goes seriously wrong — or wait until afterward to ask why we didn’t.”

That question is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from another one: What happens when increasingly capable artificial intelligence is connected to the enormous amount of information governments and private companies have already collected?

A database by itself is information. A camera records an image. A license-plate reader records a vehicle. Location information can reveal movement. A commercial data broker can assemble information from multiple sources. Social networks contain enormous maps of relationships, interests and behavior. Government databases contain still another universe of information.

For decades, the technical challenge was collecting, storing, searching and connecting those pieces.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the scale at which that can be done.

Washington is now confronting two related questions at once: how powerful these systems should be permitted to become without enforceable safeguards, and what authority they should have when connected to data and other systems.

Trump’s approach emphasizes rapid American technological development and industry-led safeguards. Warner’s legislation would impose mandatory requirements on the most advanced systems, including pre-release access for government evaluators and enforceable standards governing security, testing and autonomous agents.

And while Washington debates whether to call the technology artificial intelligence or super intelligence, the technology itself continues to advance.

EDITOR’S NOTE

Warner’s warning arrives at an extraordinary moment for the Falls Church News-Press.

This week, the News-Press will begin publishing an extensive investigation into the other side of the artificial-intelligence revolution: the massive data and surveillance infrastructure that increasingly powerful AI systems may be capable of searching, connecting and analyzing.

Our investigation did not begin with Warner’s statement Tuesday, and it did not begin with President Trump’s announcement.

It began with a much simpler question:

Who is collecting our data, and where does it go?

Following that question took us backward through more than two decades of government research, intelligence programs, defense contracting, commercial databases and the explosive growth of social media. It took us through the post-9/11 effort to connect previously isolated pieces of information; through government research into enormous datasets and social networks; through the growth of commercial data brokers capable of assembling extraordinarily detailed profiles; and into today’s world of location information, license-plate databases, facial recognition, social-media intelligence and artificial intelligence.

Then the investigation came home.

Again and again, the trail crossed Northern Virginia and the Washington metropolitan region — a region containing the Pentagon, CIA, intelligence and defense contractors, technology companies, data centers and an enormous ecosystem of private businesses serving the federal government.

That matters because the central question surrounding artificial intelligence may no longer be simply how intelligent these systems become.

It may be what we connect them to.

For years, many of the pieces of the modern information economy could be viewed separately. Social media was one debate. Government surveillance was another. Commercial data brokers were another. License-plate readers, location tracking, facial recognition, government databases and artificial intelligence each generated their own arguments over privacy, security, innovation and government power.

But what happens when those pieces are no longer separate?

Artificial intelligence creates the possibility of searching, comparing and analyzing information at a scale and speed no individual human analyst could realistically reproduce. Increasingly autonomous systems raise another question: whether machines will simply find and analyze that information or eventually be permitted to act upon it.

That is precisely where Warner’s warning Tuesday intersects with what the News-Press has been investigating.

His proposed legislation does not merely address chatbots generating text. It specifically addresses frontier models, cybersecurity, autonomous AI agents, access to data and other computer systems, authority boundaries and maintaining human control as those capabilities increase.

At the same time, the federal government Tuesday unveiled an AI-powered platform drawing upon information across more than 29,000 government websites.

Those developments do not establish that the systems examined in our forthcoming investigation are connected to America.gov or to one another. But they demonstrate why the larger question can no longer be dismissed as science fiction.

The technology capable of analyzing enormous quantities of information is becoming more powerful.

The information infrastructure already exists.

And increasingly, the debate is becoming about what happens when the two meet.

Beginning this week, the Falls Church News-Press will examine that infrastructure: where portions of it came from, the government programs and private companies that helped build it, the commercial databases and surveillance technologies operating today, how federal agencies obtain information from private sources, and why so many roads in this story lead directly back to Northern Virginia.

For years, the public has been shown individual pieces of the puzzle.

Facebook. Data brokers. Government surveillance. Location tracking. License-plate readers. Facial recognition. Artificial intelligence. Intelligence agencies. Government contractors.

Our investigation asks what the picture looks like when those pieces are placed together.

Warner says the risks surrounding increasingly powerful artificial intelligence are “no longer theoretical.”

This week, we’re going to show our readers what has already been built — and ask what happens when we connect it all.

The post Warner Warns AI Risks ‘No Longer Theoretical’ as Trump Moves to Rename Technology first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

George Mason men’s basketball will play a record 12 of its 18 Atlantic 10 games on national television this season, highlighted by a Friday night home showdown against VCU on the ESPN family of networks.

The Atlantic 10 announced its 2026-27 conference schedule Tuesday, giving the Patriots their largest national television slate in program history. Mason appeared in a then-record 10 nationally televised conference games last season.

The biggest date for Northern Virginia fans comes late in the season, when VCU visits EagleBank Arena on Friday, Feb. 26. The rivalry matchup will air nationally on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU as part of the Atlantic 10’s Friday Night Showcase, putting Mason’s home court in the national spotlight for a primetime Friday night game.

George Mason and VCU will meet twice during the regular season. Before the Rams come to Fairfax, the Patriots will travel down I-95 to Richmond for a Wednesday, Jan. 27 matchup at the Siegel Center that will air nationally on CBS Sports Network.

The expanded television schedule comes as George Mason continues a strong run under head coach Tony Skinn, who played for the Patriots during their historic 2006 Final Four season.

Mason has been particularly difficult to beat at EagleBank Arena during Skinn’s tenure, posting a 22-5 record in Atlantic 10 home games. The Patriots averaged 5,214 fans during A-10 home games last season, the program’s highest conference home attendance average since 2013-14.

The Patriots will have another nationally televised rivalry game at home when George Washington visits Fairfax Saturday, Feb. 6. That game will also air on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU.

George Mason opens Atlantic 10 play at home Wednesday, Dec. 30 against Richmond before traveling to Rhode Island Jan. 2 for a nationally televised game on USA Network. Mason hosts Fordham Jan. 6 and then travels to Saint Joseph’s Jan. 9 for another USA Network broadcast.

St. Bonaventure comes to Fairfax Jan. 13 before Mason heads across the Potomac for its annual Martin Luther King Jr. matchup against George Washington Jan. 18 in Foggy Bottom. That game will air nationally on CBS Sports Network.

The Patriots return home Jan. 23 to face Loyola Chicago on USA Network before heading to Richmond four days later for the first meeting with VCU.

Saint Joseph’s visits EagleBank Arena Jan. 30 for another nationally televised Saturday game on USA Network, followed by a Feb. 3 road game at St. Bonaventure.

The schedule then moves into a February stretch packed with rivalry games and national broadcasts. George Washington comes to Fairfax Feb. 6 for the ESPN matchup before Mason travels to Davidson Feb. 13 for a game on USA Network.

After hosting La Salle Feb. 17, the Patriots play back-to-back nationally televised road games at Duquesne Feb. 20 on USA Network and Dayton Feb. 23 on CBS Sports Network.

Three nights later, VCU comes to Fairfax for the Friday night national showcase, giving Mason one of the marquee home dates on its 2026-27 schedule.

Following the Feb. 26 game against the Rams, Mason hosts Rhode Island March 3 for Senior Night before wrapping up the regular season March 6 at 2026 Atlantic 10 champion Saint Louis on USA Network.

The 2026 Atlantic 10 Championship will be held March 10-14 at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Before conference play begins, Mason will play a home-heavy nonconference schedule that starts with an exhibition at Villanova Oct. 17. The Patriots host St. Mary’s (Md.) in an exhibition Oct. 25 before opening the regular season at EagleBank Arena against UMBC Nov. 2.

Other nonconference home opponents include Coppin State, North Carolina Central, South Florida, Longwood, Marist, Morgan State, Old Dominion, Bryant and McDaniel College. Mason will also play UMKC and Bradley in St. Petersburg, Fla., travel to High Point and face Towson in Baltimore.

George Mason enters the season led by 2025 A-10 Coach of the Year Tony Skinn, who has guided the Patriots to 70 wins over the past three seasons. Mason is one of just three A-10 programs to post a top-100 NET ranking in each of those seasons and has made back-to-back postseason appearances for the first time since 2007-09.

The Patriots return Brayden O’Connor, a 2025-26 Preseason All-A-10 First Team selection, along with key contributors Emmanuel Kanga and Malik Presley. Mason’s nationally ranked transfer class features Baraka Okojie, who earned A-10 All-Rookie honors as a freshman at Mason before garnering First Team All-SoCon honors at Mercer last season.

The incoming freshman class also includes Upper Marlboro, Md., native Shane Pendergrass, the second-highest ranked recruit in program history.

With 12 of its 18 conference games scheduled for national television, George Mason will have more national exposure than ever during the 2026-27 Atlantic 10 season. The spotlight will shine particularly bright in Fairfax on Friday night, Feb. 26, when VCU comes to EagleBank Arena for a nationally televised rivalry matchup on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU.

The post George Mason Men’s Basketball Announces Schedule, VCU Set for Friday Night National Spotlight at Home first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

BY JOHN F. CROWNOVER

Every eight hours, Virginia loses someone to suicide.

In 2023, 1,230 Virginians died by suicide, and nearly four out of five were men. They were fathers, sons, coworkers and neighbors. Suicide is a leading cause of death for Virginians ages 15 to 34, the years when many young men are trying to build a career and a family, often convinced they have to do it alone.

September is National Suicide Prevention Month, and a good month to start a habit worth keeping. Here are three things Northern Virginians can do, starting this week.

First, learn QPR, the “CPR” of suicide prevention. QPR stands for Question, Persuade and Refer. Like CPR, it teaches ordinary people to recognize the warning signs of a suicide crisis and get someone to help. The Fairfax-Falls Church Community Services Board offers the training free as a 60-minute virtual class, open to anyone 16 and older. The next session runs Sept. 29 from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Register at fairfaxcounty.gov/community-services-board/prevention/qpr.

Second, walk out of the darkness. On Saturday, Oct. 3, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention holds its Out of the Darkness Fairfax Walk at the Mosaic District. Check-in opens at 11 a.m., the opening ceremony begins at 12:30 p.m. and the walk steps off at 1 p.m. Registration is free, and the money raised supports suicide prevention research, advocacy and education programs across Virginia. Sign up at afspwalks.donordrive.com/Fairfax.

Third, put prevention on your bumper. A campaign called Matthew Matters is working to bring a Suicide Prevention and Awareness license plate to Virginia. The plate honors Matthew Herron of Ashland, who died by suicide in December 2021 at age 18. His parents designed it in teal and purple, the colors of suicide prevention, with a semicolon, the words “You Matter” and the 988 crisis line. The DMV requires 450 prepaid applications before the plate goes into production. A standard plate costs $10, refunded in full if the plate is not approved. Learn more at suicideawarenessplateva.wordpress.com.

The proposed Suicide Prevention and Awareness plate, designed by Matthew Herron’s parents. (Image courtesy of Matthew Matters)

And whatever else you do, check in. Prevention usually starts with a conversation. Ask how someone is really doing, then ask again. The first answer is usually “I’m fine.” Take warning signs seriously: hopelessness, pulling away from friends, giving away possessions or talking about being a burden. Ask about suicide directly. It does not put the idea in someone’s head. It gives the person a chance to talk. Store firearms and medications securely, one of the most effective prevention steps a household can take. And post the number for 988, the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, which is free, confidential, and available around the clock by call or text.

Men in particular often need permission to say they are not okay. In my work with men and boys across Northern Virginia, I have watched what happens when they get a room where they can speak honestly. They stay connected, and they ask for help sooner.

One Virginian every eight hours. We can bring that number down. Take the training, join the walk, order the plate, and check in on somebody this week. Then do it again next month.

If you or someone you know is struggling, call or text 988. In Fairfax County, the Community Services Board’s 24-hour emergency and mobile crisis line is 703-573-5679.

John F. Crownover is the Founder & Lead Coach of Men Talking, a Falls Church-based life coaching and emotional wellness practice.

The post Every Eight Hours: This September, Make Checking In a Habit first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

Is it too early to raise the specter of condemnation, otherwise known as a taking or the exercise of eminent domain, in the cases facing the City of Falls Church in its efforts to maintain and expand its stock of affordable housing?

Last week, the City government moved very decisively to rank respondents to its RFP to redevelop the so-called Virginia Village site on S. Maple in the City for upgraded affordable housing uses. It went with a plan offered by Urban Atlantic to place 200 or more new units on that property.

Now, here comes another challenge for affordability in the Little City represented by the near-term expiration of federal tax credits that have maintained as affordable 96 units at The Fields, the apartment complex on Ellison Street. As the owners recognize the enormous financial potential in the sale of that land for redevelopment at market rates, it has been put up for sale and the response has been brisk. Someone stands to make a killing if they can build 100 or so fancy units on that site that would go at market rates.

Despite what anyone may say, this outcome could be far more profitable than keeping the project affordable, even with a new round of federal tax credits. Someone using those credits could trade them in for funding to build, but if they are limited to affordable units, then their potential returns will be limited and nothing like what market-rate products could yield, as we see it.

So the pressure will be to let the credits expire and go with a sale at market rates. We have not seen any of the proposals for acquisition of the total project yet, but the financial incentive for a buyer to pursue the full market-rate potential of the property is obvious.

One option available to the City in such a case could ultimately be a taking, also known as an exercise of eminent domain through condemnation of the land. Such a step would not be simple. Virginia law places significant restrictions on eminent domain, requiring a legitimate public use and just compensation to the property owner, among other requirements. State law also recognizes the promotion of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents as a public purpose.

So, yes, the possibility of condemnation looms over this case, and it should be recognized as a potential factor right away. Developers are very aware of the powers available to local governments, and their potential use can affect what is considered for a valued piece of land.

So let’s cut to the chase and recognize that this could play a significant part in what will happen to The Fields. That is, unless someone decides to ignore its potential and go with something more lucrative, at the expense of the general public interest, of course.

The post The Fields: Eminent Domain Awaits first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

I love living in Falls Church. One thing that sets us apart from other cities is our strong sense of community. We have lots of events that bring us all together, like the Fall Festival that just took place last weekend, and the Memorial Day parade where we can celebrate the start of summer. We also have a mayor that works hard for us, a city council that keeps our best interests in mind, and local groups that value our community spirit.

One of those local groups is Falls Church Forward. I recently caught up with them during their monthly member Happy Hour; this one held at Solace Outpost. They were kind of enough to take a picture with me and I learned about the kinds of things that are important to this group, such as making everyone in the community feel welcome (I did!), creating affordable housing for everyone in the city, making sure our city is safe for people to walk and has lots of trees and green spaces, and also creating a place where local businesses can thrive.

The group is made up of regular residents and also elected city leaders. In fact, Mayor Letty Hardi is one of the co-founders of Falls Church Forward. I have to admit, I wasn’t entirely sure what a mayor actually does, or even a city council, even though they are titles that are very familiar.

“The City Council, including the mayor, sets the laws and budget for Falls Church,” Mayor Hardi told me. “The mayor runs the City Council meetings and acts as the face of the city for public events, but she gets one vote like the other six Councilmembers and has no special powers otherwise. The City Council listens to the community on their priorities and works with city staff on making those priorities come to life.”

Falls Church Forward also has a member of the Falls Church City Council on their board, Justine Underhill. After the Happy Hour, I contacted Justine for her thoughts on what being a member of the City Council means to her. Justine told me, “One of the things I’ve learned on City Council is how much the way we design a city shapes our everyday lives. It determines whether a child can safely walk or bike to school, whether neighbors run into each other and get to know one another, and whether people of different ages and abilities can really be part of their community.”

Justine’s comments really emphasized to me how much the City Council works to make everyone in the city feel included. “I think if we build a city where kids can safely and independently get around, play, and explore, we’re usually building a city that works better for everyone,” Justine said. “Part of our job on City Council is making sure we’re thinking about everyone who lives here, including people who may never speak up at a City Council meeting.”

Falls Church Forward events aren’t just for adults. Next month they’re sponsoring a Halloween Bike Parade on October 25, from 3 – 5 p.m. and everyone is welcome. Details on the event and where to meet will be posted soon, so look for updates at fallschurchforward.org.

The post Falls Church Forward Spreads Community Spirit in the Little City first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

Just as the City of Falls Church is now fully engaged in the effort to dedicate 4.5 acres in the center of the city known as the Virginia Village for new affordable housing, its other major affordable housing site, The Fields apartments on Ellison Street, has officially come up for sale, and the clock is now ticking for action on that one on whether or not subsidised affordable housing can or will be sustained there.  

The Fields is a 96-unit committed affordable housing property in the City of Falls Church. The property to date has been made affordable through the use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (Housing Credits) that are set to expire in 2026. Under Virginia Housing’s extended use agreement, the units will remain affordable for a full three years after the Housing Credits expire, until 2029. 

But the entire project has gone up for sale and the development challenges the City with coming up with a plan to retain it as affordable. At the end of August, a deadline for the acquisition of the entire project passed and a number of potential developers responded.

According to a lengthy report on the City’s website, “with information from the City and engagement with the non-profit and for-profit owners of The Fields, consultants have a solid understanding of the long-term intentions of the current owners, as well as their capacity and ability to preserve the property as an affordable multifamily rental.”

With this, the consultants have provided valuable context and outlined crucial steps the City must undertake to protect the property’s affordability and the residents who live there. Firstly, according to the report, “it should be acknowledged that the City recognizes the value The Fields brings to the community of Falls Church, and recognizes that the long-term affordability of The Fields is at risk.” 

As of the end of this August, potential buyers of the property faced a deadline to submit offers to the current owners, with no indications of whether or not maintaining affordability would be a feature of their future ownership.

According to consultants writing on the City’s website, while “It is admirable that the City is taking action to maintain the affordability of the property six years prior to the expiration of the Housing Credits, and nine years prior to the loss of affordability, what became clear through extensive stakeholder engagement, and as is explained in further detail below, however, is that there is no silver bullet that will ensure the long-term preservation of the property at this time. As economically motivated entities, the party/parties currently controlling the property recognize the immense potential future value of the land once the affordability restrictions expire, which limits the options the City or anyone else may have at the current time.”

“Any new owner will also aspire to maximize profits once any affordability restrictions expire. Though there are no immediate actions the City can take to transfer ownership of the property, there are steps that the City can and should take to better position themselves to negotiate with the owner(s) when that time comes,” the consultant said.

Even though the entire complex is changing hands, individual apartments are still not for sale to personal homebuyers. It will remain an entire multi-family rental community. Meanwhile, there is no evidence the City has as yet done anything to keep the project affordable other than to commission a report in 2020 on future options.

No information on what prospective redevelopers intend for the site has been made public to date.

However, Falls Church housing officials have confirmed that the current owner of The Fields is independently seeking a partner “to help preserve its affordability.” According to the consultant’s report filed online, updates on the effort, including any potential partnership, are expected to be reviewed by the City Council later this fall.

The post The Fields: F.C.’s Latest Affordability Challenge first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) is calling for the immediate suspension of a new AI-supported system being deployed by the Federal Aviation Administration at Washington-area airports, less than two years after 67 people were killed in a midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Beyer is hardly alone in asking how far artificial intelligence should be allowed to go and who should be watching it. HillGraph’s AI Policy Dashboard currently identifies 120 AI-related bills in the 119th Congress, covering issues ranging from national security and health care to jobs, privacy, education and safeguards intended to keep increasingly powerful AI systems under human control.

Here in Virginia, the issue is coming from nearly every direction. Gov. Abigail Spanberger this week called on congressional leaders to establish national AI guardrails, warning about potential impacts on privacy, employment and resource consumption, while her administration has created a Virginia AI Task Force focused on workforce displacement, data privacy and cybersecurity.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is pushing stronger cybersecurity protections for Americans’ medical information and challenging a federal proposal involving identifiable health information from millions of federal employees, retirees and their families. He has also focused on “surveillance pricing,” questioning how personal information and algorithms can influence what consumers pay.

Then there is the gas pump. Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit accuse some of the nation’s largest gasoline retailers of using an AI-powered pricing platform in a manner that coordinated prices rather than allowing retailers to independently compete. Those allegations are contested and have not been proven in court.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church), meanwhile, has questioned the risks created by interconnected surveillance databases capable of tracking people’s movements. Falls Church Police Chief Shahram Fard has said the City has no fixed Flock cameras and no relationship with Flock, while Fard and Sheriff Matt Cay are among local officials confronting increasingly complicated rules surrounding surveillance technology, data retention and information sharing.

The national debate is moving even further. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have proposed temporarily pausing advanced AI development until federal safety rules are established, permanently prohibiting artificial superintelligence as defined by their legislation and creating a cabinet-level federal agency to oversee advanced AI.

Airports, medical records, grocery prices, gas prices, cellphones, license plates, jobs and data centers may sound like completely different stories. Taken together, they help explain why Congress is suddenly confronting 120 different pieces of AI-related legislation.

For Beyer, the immediate concern is what is happening above Northern Virginia.

“The FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system,” Beyer said Monday in calling for suspension of the FAA’s Strategic Management of Airspace Routing Trajectories system, known as SMART.

The FAA says SMART centralizes approximately 200 streams of information involving weather, flight paths, traffic flow, controller staffing and other conditions, using AI to help aviation specialists anticipate congestion and other problems. The system provides information and recommendations rather than replacing air traffic controllers, and nothing identified by the News-Press establishes that SMART itself is unsafe.

Beyer’s concerns include whether controllers were sufficiently involved in developing and testing the system and whether adequate independent testing occurred before deployment. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has said it was not involved in SMART’s design, testing or implementation.

Those questions carry additional weight here following the Jan. 29, 2025 collision between an American Airlines passenger jet and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac, which killed all 67 people aboard the two aircraft. The crash had nothing to do with artificial intelligence, but the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation identified systemic safety failures and produced 74 findings and 50 safety recommendations.

Beyer also recently led a bipartisan group of House members calling for congressional action following reported incidents involving increasingly capable AI agents. As AI moves beyond answering questions and generating pictures into systems capable of accessing databases, writing code, operating software and interacting with other computer systems, the concern becomes less about science fiction and more about what technical barriers exist when an AI system is given permission to act.

Spanberger argues that some of those questions require national rules. “Our AI Task Force is focused on addressing the significant risks to our jobs, our privacy, and our cybersecurity posed by the real, rapid development of AI,” she said this week, while calling on Congress to establish nationwide guardrails.

Warner is raising similar questions about information Americans already consider among their most private. He and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have introduced legislation requiring minimum cybersecurity standards for health care organizations, while Warner and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are separately challenging an Office of Personnel Management proposal involving identifiable health information from federal employees, retirees and family members.

The same technology is also moving closer to the price tag. Warner’s “surveillance pricing” concerns involve the potential use of personal information and algorithms to determine what individual consumers may be willing to pay. The Kalibrate lawsuit raises a different allegation: that competing gasoline retailers relying on the same pricing technology reduced ordinary price competition. Those allegations remain unproven.

And Northern Virginia isn’t simply using this technology — it is helping power it. Loudoun County says it has the highest concentration of data centers anywhere in the world, with approximately 233 data center buildings and 56.5 million square feet built or under construction as of March 1.

The questions surrounding all of it are becoming increasingly difficult to separate: Who controls the information? What can artificial intelligence do with it? Who establishes the boundaries? And who is watching when those boundaries fail?

This story continues online at FCNP.com, where the News-Press digs deeper into AI safety, government access to cellphones and medical records, license plate readers and electronic device tracking, grocery and gasoline pricing, cybercrime, federal job losses, Data Center Alley and the growing battle over who ultimately controls America’s data.

BEYOND THE PRINT EDITION (online only)

The explosion of AI legislation in Congress is significant not simply because of the number of bills, but because of what lawmakers are attempting to regulate.

HillGraph’s AI Policy Dashboard currently identifies 120 AI-related bills in the 119th Congress, with proposals addressing artificial intelligence across national security, health care, education, finance, privacy and increasingly autonomous systems.

That does not mean Congress agrees about what should be done. The proposals range from encouraging development and establishing technical standards to regulating particular uses of AI and, at the far end of the debate, stopping development of some advanced systems altogether.

Sanders and Casar’s proposal would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence as defined in the legislation and temporarily pause advanced AI development until federal safety rules are established. Their proposal also calls for a new cabinet-level federal agency, penalties for violations, and an international effort aimed at preventing development of artificial superintelligence elsewhere.

Spanberger is taking a different approach. She is not calling for AI development to stop, but for Congress to establish nationwide guardrails while states continue acting within their own authority. Her Sept. 22 letter to congressional leaders specifically identified data privacy, employment and large-scale resource consumption as areas requiring attention and argued that the United States does not have to choose between AI safety and technological leadership.

The debate therefore isn’t simply between people who support AI and people who oppose it. The much more difficult argument is over where the lines should be drawn, who should draw them, and whether government can establish rules quickly enough to keep up.

WHEN AI DOESN’T STAY INSIDE THE LINES

The controversy surrounding SMART is not about an artificial intelligence system taking control of airplanes. It is about how much testing and human oversight should be required before AI-supported technology is incorporated into systems where mistakes can have serious consequences.

Beyer’s concerns also follow reported incidents in which increasingly autonomous AI agents have taken actions beyond what developers or users expected. On Sept. 16, Beyer led a bipartisan group of 10 House members urging congressional leaders to act on AI legislation following reported incidents involving autonomous agents.

The problem does not require a machine to become conscious, develop motives or decide to turn against humans. An AI agent is software capable of processing information and taking actions with varying levels of autonomy in pursuit of a goal.

The important distinction is between an instruction and a barrier.

Humans routinely understand instructions within a much broader framework of common sense, consequences and context. Computer systems operate within the access and technical restrictions humans give them. If an increasingly autonomous system has permission to interact with a database, computer network or other software, a written instruction telling it not to perform a particular action may not provide the same protection as a technical control making the action impossible.

One of the clearest real-world examples came from AI coding platform Replit, where an AI coding agent deleted a live production database during a software development project despite instructions intended to prevent changes to production systems. Replit’s chief executive publicly apologized following the incident and the company announced additional safeguards.

That wasn’t a machine becoming conscious or deliberately rebelling against humans. It demonstrated something much more practical: an AI system capable of taking actions can produce consequences beyond what the person using it intended.

As AI agents become capable of using software, writing code, searching databases and communicating with other systems, that difference becomes considerably more consequential.

MEDICAL RECORDS AND THE GOVERNMENT

Some of the most sensitive information Americans possess is already sitting inside enormous databases.

Warner and Wyden’s Health Infrastructure Security and Accountability Act would require HHS to establish and regularly update minimum cybersecurity standards for health care providers, health plans, and other covered entities amid continuing cyberattacks against hospitals and providers. The proposal would also provide $1.3 billion to help hospitals improve cybersecurity, including $800 million directed toward rural and underserved communities.

The separate dispute involving OPM raises a different question: how much identifiable medical information should the government collect and what safeguards should surround it?

Warner, Schiff and other senators say an OPM System of Records Notice confirms an intention to collect identifiable health information involving federal workers. They have objected to the proposal and demanded stronger privacy protections and suspension of the collection. Those are the senators’ stated concerns; the existence or proposed creation of a large government health database does not itself establish that the information will be misused.

The significance for artificial intelligence is scale.

A single medical claim may reveal relatively little. Assemble years of claims, providers, procedures, prescriptions and treatment dates and the resulting record can reveal considerably more about someone’s life. AI makes searching, sorting and identifying patterns across enormous amounts of information faster and cheaper than it has ever been.

YOUR CAR IS NO LONGER JUST A LICENSE PLATE

Virginia has already imposed significant restrictions on how law-enforcement license plate reader information can be retained and shared, while local officials are having to navigate what increasingly complicated surveillance rules mean in practice.

Falls Church Police Chief Shahram Fard has said the City does not operate fixed Flock cameras or have a relationship with Flock. Sheriff Matt Cay, who previously served as a Falls Church police officer before becoming sheriff, is among the local officials working in an environment where the lines between ordinary investigative tools, enormous private databases and emerging surveillance technology are becoming increasingly important.

Traditional automated license plate readers photograph plates and convert the images into searchable records. Newer technology demonstrates that a plate itself does not have to be the only identifying feature.

Leonardo’s ELSAG SignalTrace technology can passively detect signals associated with electronic devices including mobile phones, smartwatches, RFID tags and other electronics. The company says its technology can identify combinations of devices repeatedly traveling together and correlate those patterns with license plate information, creating what amounts to an electronic fingerprint.

SignalTrace does not mean an ordinary license plate reader secretly performs the same function, and there is no evidence Falls Church uses SignalTrace. The technology instead demonstrates where surveillance is capable of going: identifying a vehicle not simply from the characters printed on a metal plate, but potentially from the collection of electronics traveling inside it.

Virginia’s statutory definition of surveillance technology includes automated license plate readers, cell-site simulators, facial and biometric recognition, social-media monitoring, passive radio scanners and long-range Bluetooth and other wireless-scanning devices.

The law is already trying to catch up with what the equipment can do.

THE COMPUTER IN YOUR POCKET

Cellphones present perhaps the clearest example of how much the meaning of personal information has changed.

A modern phone can contain messages, photographs, financial information, health information, work files, internet activity, contacts and years of personal communications. Depending on settings and services, information associated with the device can also reveal where its owner has been.

Federal courts continue to determine how constitutional protections apply to searches of those devices, particularly at international borders, where the government’s search authority has traditionally been broader.

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that routine manual searches of cellphones at the border do not require a warrant, probable cause or individualized suspicion. The ruling did not establish unlimited authority for more intrusive forensic extraction of cellphone data and directly governs the states within the Second Circuit.

The distinction between manually looking through a phone and using specialized equipment to extract or analyze its contents is increasingly important. But the larger issue is difficult to miss: a search of a modern cellphone can potentially reveal an amount of information that once would have required searches of someone’s home, office, filing cabinets, photographs, correspondence and financial records.

Now much of it can travel inside a pocket.

WHAT DOES AI KNOW ABOUT WHAT YOU’LL PAY?

Warner’s “surveillance pricing” push moves the data debate from privacy into Americans’ wallets.

The basic concern is straightforward: if a company knows enough about a consumer’s location, browsing behavior, demographics, previous purchases or other characteristics, algorithms can potentially estimate what that particular person is willing to pay.

That does not mean every grocery store is secretly charging every customer a different price. It means the technology and data increasingly exist to make individualized offers and pricing decisions at a scale that would have been difficult to imagine when most transactions occurred with a price sticker and cash register.

Warner has used identical online grocery orders carrying different prices to illustrate the issue and has pushed the Federal Trade Commission to examine surveillance pricing.

The gasoline case raises a different problem.

Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit accuse major fuel retailers of using Kalibrate’s algorithmic pricing technology in a manner that coordinated gasoline prices rather than allowing the companies to independently compete. The allegations remain contested and have not been proven in court.

The distinction is important. Surveillance pricing asks what happens when an algorithm knows enough about you to estimate what you will pay. The Kalibrate lawsuit alleges a different form of potential harm: competitors relying on the same pricing technology in a manner plaintiffs say reduced ordinary price competition.

Either way, software is moving much closer to the price tag.

CRIMINALS WANT THE DATA TOO

Restricting government or corporate access does not solve the entire problem because personal information has become extraordinarily valuable to criminals.

The FBI received 1,008,597 internet-crime complaints in 2025, with reported losses approaching $21 billion. Cyber-enabled fraud accounted for more than $17 billion in reported losses, while Americans over 60 reported approximately $7.7 billion in losses.

That makes the privacy debate considerably more complicated than deciding whether the government should be allowed to collect information. Governments want data. Businesses want data. Criminals want data. Increasingly, AI systems can make that data more useful to whoever possesses it.

Anyone who grew up during the early personal-computer era remembers rampant software piracy. Programs were cracked, copied and passed around with little thought given to the companies that spent money developing them. Those companies did not accept having their digital property stolen simply because technology made copying it easy. Laws changed, security improved and enforcement followed because society recognized that information did not stop having value simply because it existed digitally.

Today the valuable digital property increasingly belongs to ordinary Americans: our financial information, photographs, communications, locations, purchases, medical records, devices and identities.

A license plate observation, wireless signal, medical claim, purchase or location point may reveal relatively little by itself. Connect enough information over enough time and artificial intelligence can identify relationships and patterns that once would have been extraordinarily difficult for a human investigator, company or criminal to discover.

THE JOBS ARE CHANGING TOO

Northern Virginia is simultaneously experiencing another enormous transformation.

The Washington metropolitan area lost approximately 103,900 jobs between January 2025 and January 2026, including 62,100 federal jobs, according to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Federal employment in the region fell 16.5 percent during that period and reached its lowest level since 1990.

Those jobs cannot simply be described as having been replaced by artificial intelligence. Federal workforce reductions and accelerating AI adoption are separate developments, and there is no evidence establishing AI as the cause of those 62,100 lost federal positions.

But they are occurring at the same time in the same region.

Government and private industry are investing heavily in automation, cloud computing and AI while tens of thousands of traditional federal positions disappear from the Washington economy. That raises a longer-term question about what happens to Northern Virginia if the economy that emerges from the AI revolution does not employ the same number or types of people as the one it replaces.

Technology has always eliminated some jobs while creating others. AI could increase productivity, create new industries and generate entirely new categories of employment. The difficult question is what happens during the transition and whether workers displaced by that transformation share in the economic benefits it creates.

Sanders is already tying those issues together in another way. He and Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) have pushed legislation moving toward a 32-hour workweek, arguing that productivity gains from AI and automation should improve workers’ lives rather than simply eliminate jobs.

The employment argument therefore may eventually become about more than how many jobs AI destroys or creates. It may also become a debate over who receives the economic value produced when machines allow fewer people to accomplish more work.

DATA CENTER ALLEY IS GROUND ZERO

Nowhere is that transformation more visible than Northern Virginia.

Loudoun County says it has the highest concentration of data centers anywhere in the world. As of March 1, it had approximately 233 existing data center buildings representing 56.5 million square feet built or under construction, with another 35.7 million square feet of data center use approved but not yet built. More than 17,000 direct and indirect jobs are tied to the industry.

The financial impact is enormous. Data centers generated approximately $1.2 billion in Loudoun real and personal property tax revenue in FY2026, representing 39 percent of the county’s overall budget. The FY2027 adopted budget projects $1.3 billion, or 40 percent of the county budget, from the industry.

That means Virginia cannot realistically discuss artificial intelligence without discussing the infrastructure required to power it.

Spanberger’s Data Center Accountability Framework attempts to connect those issues, addressing energy costs, environmental impacts, transparency and workforce concerns while her administration simultaneously moves forward with the AI Task Force.

And we haven’t even touched some of the biggest players in the room.

Major cloud and technology companies operate enormous amounts of digital infrastructure in Northern Virginia, where decades of investment in fiber networks, data centers and internet connectivity have made the region one of the most important pieces of physical infrastructure underlying the digital economy.

Questions surrounding where information is stored, who owns it, who can access it, how systems connect it and what happens when increasingly autonomous artificial intelligence is layered on top could fill another investigation by themselves.

WHO WRITES THE RULES?

The debate ultimately comes back to the government because someone has to decide where the boundaries are.

Spanberger is calling for national guardrails while arguing that Virginia will continue acting in areas where the state has authority. Sanders and Casar are proposing that the government go much further and halt development of certain advanced systems until safety requirements are established. Other lawmakers are pursuing narrower rules governing specific uses of AI, while the Trump administration has advocated a national AI framework rather than a patchwork of differing state requirements.

There are competing interests.

Artificial intelligence could help doctors diagnose diseases, protect computer networks, discover new medicines, identify fraud, improve transportation, increase productivity and solve problems involving amounts of information humans cannot realistically process alone. Data centers support thousands of jobs and enormous amounts of local tax revenue, while American technology companies are competing globally to develop systems that could shape the next generation of the world economy.

Too much government control can restrict innovation, competition and economic growth. Too little oversight can leave citizens absorbing the consequences when systems fail, personal information is misused, markets are manipulated or criminals exploit new technology faster than government can respond.

SMART may ultimately work exactly as the FAA intends and make aviation safer. License plate readers can help police find stolen cars and solve crimes. Medical databases can improve care and identify fraud. Algorithms can make businesses more efficient.

The issue is not whether technology itself is good or bad. It is how much power comes with the ability to collect, connect and analyze enormous amounts of information, where the boundaries should be placed, and whether safeguards are being built before something goes wrong rather than afterward.

Less than two years after 67 people died over the Potomac, Beyer is asking those questions about AI and aviation. Warner is asking them about medical information, cybersecurity and consumer prices. Simon is asking them about surveillance databases, while Falls Church Police Chief Shahram Fard and Sheriff Matt Cay are dealing with what increasingly complicated rules surrounding technology, surveillance and information sharing mean when they reach the local level. Spanberger is asking Congress to establish national rules while Virginia creates an AI Task Force of its own, and lawmakers across the country are introducing proposals that demonstrate just how unsettled the answers remain.

All of it is happening here, while Northern Virginia’s federal workforce shrinks and the world’s largest concentration of data centers continues powering an accelerating digital economy. Virginia is simultaneously helping build the future and becoming one of the places being forced to decide what protections should come with it.

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, how America answers those questions may help determine whether technological progress expands freedom or gives governments, companies, criminals and machines greater control over our information, our choices and even what we pay.

The News-Press will continue following the data.

The post AI Reaches Airports, Groceries, Gas and Medical Records first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

[Photo Senior Abram Ellis(#1) is tackled after a strong run. (Photo by Arlo Firestone)]

The Mustangs fell to the Millbrook Pioneers 29-6 on Friday, Sep 18, dropping their record to 2-2 on the still-young campaign. Despite what the box score may indicate, the Mustangs have plenty of positives to take away from this game.

Both teams held each other scoreless for the first quarter. Millbrook struck first early in the second, scoring on a big play that started to become a theme in the game. After missing the extra point, they managed to get the ball back and hit a long field goal to go up 9-0. A failed fake punt attempt by Meridian aided in Millbrook’s scoring barrage, and by halftime, the Pioneers had extended their lead all the way to 19-0.

The second half was not much kinder to the Mustangs, as the Pioneers scored another ten points. Before the clock hit zeroes the Mustangs were able to put together a solid drive to make the final score look more respectable, ending the game with a touchdown by senior running back Abram Ellis.

Head coach PJ Anderson was quick to pin the blame on himself for the team’s difficult outing.

“I put the offense in some terrible positions tonight, and I put the defense in some even worse positions. That fake punt call, there was a fourth down early in the second half that I went for and we got stuffed on, so there’s a lot we can do to improve, and that starts with me. We will make the necessary adjustments and improvements this weekend to bring into practice next week,” coach Anderson remarked.

Coach Anderson also expressed his pride in the effort his team showed throughout the game.

“Our effort was phenomenal all week and today, and it was one of the better weeks of practice we’ve had. That’s what makes [this loss] tough, because the kids had such a great week of practice, and to have this result, it’s disheartening,” coach Anderson said.

One of the biggest positives for the Mustangs was their strength in the trenches. Despite their struggles through the air, the Mustangs’ rushing game was once again a bright spot.

“The rushing attack has come a long way [since Kettle Run]. We’ve made some changes, moving [seniors] Sebastian Roncoroni, Jetson Fitzpatrick, and Keaton Grace to the offensive line. If they’re not our three best football players, they’re three of our best four. They all could play in college if they want to. They’ve been selfless, and they’re going to continue to propel the success we’ve had up front. That was a change we made last week [for Annandale] and it paid dividends. This week, I’m sure the rushing attack had over 100 yards, maybe over 150. It’s because of those guys and our really good stable of running backs,” coach Anderson said.

Meridian’s rushing attack has indeed been stellar this season. Led by the aforementioned seniors on the offensive line, as well as the Mustangs’ deep pool of talented backs, the team has mustered impressive performances on the ground in almost every single game of the season so far, save their loss to Kettle Run.

“Meridian football is throwing the ball six to seven times a game, and we have six or seven completions for 125 yards, and it keeps the defense off balance. We have to get back to that and stop chasing the home run, and that’s on me,” coach Anderson explained.

The Mustangs will look to bounce back from their loss next week, when they go on the road to face the Fauquier Falcons on Friday, Sep 25.

The post Mustangs Passing Attack Struggles in Loss to Pioneers first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is raising concerns about portions of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s newly announced data center accountability framework, warning that additional restrictions on the industry could affect Virginia’s ability to attract future investment.

In a statement released Saturday, the Chamber said it supports efforts to protect Virginia residents and businesses from rising energy costs and address the effects of rapid data center development, but argued that some elements of the governor’s framework could make the Commonwealth less competitive with other states.

The Chamber pointed to the data center industry’s economic footprint in Virginia, citing 74,000 jobs, $9.1 billion in economic output and $5.34 billion in state and local tax revenue. It also defended Virginia’s sales and use tax exemption for data center equipment, calling the incentive an important part of the state’s economic development strategy.

The organization specifically raised concerns about proposals affecting permitting and confidentiality surrounding prospective data center projects. Chamber President and CEO Brad N. Hall argued that companies considering major investments often rely on confidential discussions with state and local economic development officials before publicly announcing potential locations.

“Virginia should address legitimate concerns surrounding affordability, infrastructure, and the impacts of growth on our communities,” Hall said, while arguing that new requirements should not place Virginia at a competitive disadvantage.

The Chamber said its Blueprint Virginia 2035 economic development plan calls for streamlined permitting, expanded digital and energy infrastructure and an energy strategy designed to balance affordability, reliability and growing demand. The organization has previously identified infrastructure and energy availability as major issues affecting Virginia’s long-term business climate.

The response highlights the competing pressures surrounding Virginia’s rapidly expanding data center industry. State policymakers are increasingly confronting questions over electricity demand, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts and the effect of large-scale development on surrounding communities, while business groups are urging policymakers to preserve the economic incentives and regulatory environment that helped make Virginia a major center of the industry.

The Chamber said it plans to work with the Spanberger administration and General Assembly as the framework moves toward specific legislative proposals, arguing that Virginia can address energy affordability, reliability and community concerns while continuing to attract private investment.

The post Virginia Chamber Raises Concerns Over Spanberger Data Center Framework first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.

Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO were denied access to the White House Saturday after President Donald Trump announced the three news organizations would be barred from the complex.

White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich responded:

“The president said it plainly in the Oval Office, describing his own planned action as a ‘ban on the free press.’”

Heinrich said the issue extends beyond journalists to the public’s ability to receive independent reporting about the actions and decisions of the presidency.

“The WHCA stands in defense of our colleagues at CNN, MSNOW, and POLITICO who are being singled out for doing their jobs.”

The dispute raises new questions over White House press access, the First Amendment and the government’s authority to restrict news organizations from covering the presidency.

#FreePress #FirstAmendment #WhiteHouse #Journalism #WHCA

The post 🚨 WHITE HOUSE PRESS ACCESS REVOKED first appeared on Falls Church News-Press Online.