Founded in 1991, the National Legal and Policy Center promotes ethics in public life through research, investigation, education and legal action. We recognize that the bigger the government, the more opportunities for corruption; and the more intervention in the economy, the more reason for special interests to seek influence. We believe that the best way to promote ethics is to reduce the size of government. We do not believe that ethics are advanced through more laws or "better guidelines," even as existing ones are ignored. We don't believe the problem is with too few laws, or with too much freedom, but with men and women. We believe the missing ingredients are character, morality and common sense.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) on Capitol Hill on January 22, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
Kevin Kiley Left the Republican Party Over Gerrymandering. Now He's Testing Whether an Independent Can Beat the Map Drawn to Defeat Him.
Jul 29, 2026
Independent voters now represent the largest share of the American electorate, and yet they remain almost entirely unrepresented in Congress. Both major parties have spent decades optimizing for their bases, leaving the near majority of Americans who identify as independent with the choice of either voting for a party candidate they don't fully support or staying home.
A handful of high-profile independent candidates are trying to change that in 2026. They are often covered as fringe candidates whose stories are told through the lens of how they'll impact the outcome between a Republican and a Democrat, rather than on their own terms. This series exists because independent voters deserve better than that.
In California's 6th Congressional District, Rep. Kevin Kiley serves as the only independent currently serving in the House of Representatives, and he’s running for reelection in a district gerrymandered to end that service.
The Candidate
Kevin Kiley is a Rocklin native who spent his entire political career as a Republican before this year. He represented the 6th District in the California State Assembly from 2016 to 2022 before getting elected to Congress in 2022 in California's 3rd District, winning reelection in 2024.
This March, Kiley filed for reelection with no party affiliation and days later asked the clerk of the House to reflect his independent status on the official roster, effective immediately. He became the 10th member of Congress to change party affiliation since 2000 and the only sitting independent in the chamber.
Asked whether the decision was difficult, Kiley described it as the culmination of a series of events that showed how partisan and broken Washington has become and said it felt like the right thing to do "when the whole gerrymandering circus got out of control."
The circus in question was a nationwide drive to mid-decade redistricting. Normally, the redistricting process follows the decennial census. Required by the Constitution, this census sees changes to populations across the US and leads to potential reapportionment of representatives and redrawing of districts. This year, however, many states decided to engage in a redistricting war, including California.
California passed independent redistricting over a decade ago, which meant that redistricting mid-cycle would require a public vote. Proposition 50, the November 2025 ballot measure that allowed California to bypass its independent redistricting commission and pass a new Democratic-friendly House map before the 2026 midterms passed by nearly 30 points. The new map dismantled Kiley's 3rd District. Rather than challenge fellow Republican Rep. Tom McClintock in the safer 5th District, Kiley chose the much bluer 6th—the one that includes his hometown.
The Race
The redrawn 6th District covers portions of Yolo, Sacramento, and Placer counties, including West Sacramento, Natomas, parts of northern Sacramento, and sections of Roseville, Rocklin, and Citrus Heights. It was engineered to elect a Democrat: while Kiley's original district went for Donald Trump by four points in 2024, the new 6th favored Kamala Harris by nine points.
The June 2 top-two primary tested whether an independent incumbent could survive on that terrain.
He did.
Kiley led the seven-candidate field with 46,921 votes (24.3%), followed by former Democratic state Sen. Richard Pan with 44,805 (23.2%) and Republican Michael Stansfield with 38,823 (20.1%). Pan edged out Stansfield for the second runoff spot, narrowly avoiding a rare California race that would have boxed out a Democrat entirely.
The primary math cuts both ways. Kiley finished first without a party. But Democratic candidates combined for approximately 55.7% of the primary vote, meaning Pan's path in November runs through consolidating a coalition that already exists on paper, while Kiley must hold Republicans who just voted for Stansfield and win over unaffiliated and crossover voters.
On fundraising, Kiley currently leads Pan. Through their 6/30 FEC filings, Kiley has raised just shy of $3 million, while Pan is just under $1.1 million. Kiley is also sitting on $2.1 million cash on hand, having spent only a third of his total receipts during the primary. That’s compared to Pan’s $360,000.
Governing as the Only Independent
Kiley's answer to how independence has changed his approach in Washington is that it hasn't—it formalized it. "I always approach my role as being a representative of all constituents," he said in our interview. "Being an independent is a reflection of that."
He has a recent data point to cite. In June, Kiley's office received a 2026 Democracy Award from the Congressional Management Foundation for Best of Constituent Service — a competitive program that drew more than 150 applications from over 80 offices across both chambers, with 18 recipients selected across seven categories. In accepting the award, Kiley said his office has closed more than 6,000 individual cases, returning over $21 million directly to constituents and helped the district receive over $315 million in federal grants. Among the grants he points to is a $22.5 million award, secured working with both the Biden and Trump administrations, to address traffic congestion around Highway 65 and I-80.
The Reform Agenda: Redistricting First
Immediately bucking party leadership, one of Kiley’s first moves as an independent was to introduce a bill to combat the redistricting war that led to his defection from the Republican Party. His bill would prohibit states from redrawing congressional maps more than once every 10 years, after the census, unless a federal court orders it—a ban that would apply to red-state and blue-state gerrymanders alike. When House leadership declined to move it, Kiley introduced a discharge petition in May to force a floor vote, one of the few tools rank-and-file lawmakers have to bypass leadership.
The bill has drawn fire from both party establishments — which, for a candidate running against the two-party duopoly, is not the worst place to be. A spokesperson for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dismissed it as "unserious legislation", while Kiley has also publicly criticized Speaker Mike Johnson for failing to advance legislation curbing partisan redistricting.
Beyond the mid-decade ban, Kiley told IVN he wants independent redistricting commissions in every state, open primaries and other reforms "so that you don't have the two parties controlling everything and a system that breeds people on the extremes rather than people who want to solve problems," and a voter ID requirement, which he notes most voters support. He also wants structural change inside the House itself: more avenues for getting bills to the floor beyond leadership discretion or the rare discharge petition, including giving bills a right to a vote based on cosponsor count, and a cultural shift away from party-line procedural votes. He notes that the party-line norm lets "a handful of people hold the whole institution hostage based on unrelated demands."
The Anti-Corruption Agenda
Corruption consistently ranks near the top of the issues independent voters care about, and Kiley's second major post-party legislative push targets it directly. In late June, he joined Democratic Reps. Kristen McDonald Rivet, Greg Landsman, and Eugene Vindman to introduce the No Profiting from Public Service Act, which would ban politicians, Supreme Court justices, and other federal officials (including executive appointees) from trading stocks and using prediction markets to wager on government and politics. The bill goes further than most prior stock-trading bans: it would also bar spouses and dependents from owning and trading stocks, and extend coverage to candidates for Congress.
"There are many ways to make government more transparent and accountable," Kiley told IVN, describing the principle behind the bill as ensuring officials "can't make money on public service."
The Caucus Question
Like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who caucus with Democrats, Kiley has said he will caucus with Republicans through the end of the 119th Congress. What happens after that is genuinely open. Current House rules effectively require members to caucus with a party to receive committee assignments — a structural penalty on independence that Kiley wants eliminated. He told IVN he would ask the Speaker to change the rule so independents can serve on committees without joining either conference, and that in a new term he would decide his affiliation based on "what's best for constituents and what would restore the House to truly being the People's House."
That answer will not satisfy critics on either side. Pan's campaign argues the independent label is cosmetic, citing vote analyses showing Kiley has voted with Trump-backed positions in the overwhelming majority of votes where the president's position was publicly known. Kiley's counter is his record since the switch — including providing what he called the decisive signature on the discharge petition that forced a vote on the Ukraine Support Act, and voting against legislation to dismantle the Department of Education from his position chairing an Education and Workforce subcommittee.
Turning Out the Independent Vote
Kiley is candid about the disillusionment among unaffiliated voters, some of whom polling suggests plan to sit out November entirely. "I understand where a lot of folks are coming from," he said, pointing to primaries in many states that shut out independents and to his own singular status: "I'm the only independent member of the House even though half the country" identifies outside the parties. Independents, he argues, are "vastly underrepresented," and the only remedy is showing up, "making their voice heard and making their presence felt" by supporting candidates with a demonstrated willingness to work across the aisle and reform the system so collaboration becomes structurally easier, not just personally admirable.
The Debate Standoff
The clearest current flashpoint in the race is Kiley's challenge to Pan for five debates across the district, which he argues would prevent the race from being decided by campaign ads, party organization, and outside spending. Pan has yet to commit to a single date, venue, or format, though his campaign says he looks forward to having a conversation to help voters decide. IVN covered the standoff in detail.
Asked what he would tell voters on a debate stage, Kiley said he would start with his record—constituent services, federal grants delivered—and draw a contrast with Pan's twelve years in a state Legislature he characterizes as the most extreme in the country, presiding over the nation's highest cost of living. His sharpest charge: that Pan "always does what he's told by party leaders" and that his refusal to commit to debates reflects a campaign strategy of "reading talking points handed to him by Washington, D.C."
Assessment
CA-6 is the purest test case of the 2026 cycle for a question that matters well beyond Sacramento: whether a candidate can survive a map drawn specifically to end his career by refusing to play the game the map assumes. The newly drawn district's fundamentals favor Pan, with Harris winning the district by nine points. However, the incumbent advantage is real, and voters have demonstrated a willingness to vote for people who are willing to buck their party leadership to fight for popular reforms. His constituent services record suggests a candidate who has made many inroads in improving the lives for his constituents, but many of them are no longer voters in the district he hopes to represent because of the redistricting effort.
As districts become more gerrymandered, margins necessarily get closer. And as independent voters make up a larger and larger share of the vote, those smaller margins are going to result in unexpected outcomes. If Kiley wins in the newly-drawn CA-6, a district drawn to create a safely Democratic seat, the only independent in the House will have proven that the label can beat the gerrymander that created it.
Kevin Kiley Left the Republican Party Over Gerrymandering. Now He's Testing Whether an Independent Can Beat the Map Drawn to Defeat Him is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A record number of veterans, especially women veterans, are running for Congress in 2026, bringing military leadership and public service to the campaign trail.
KairosDee/Getty Images
In Lady Veterans We Trust
Jul 28, 2026
Many people who have served, or are still serving in the military, are not thrilled with the state of our country. There are plenty of active duty members who wish they could quit–and many of them are in my DMs asking for my advice–which might be why the number of military personnel inquiring about conscientious objection has risen by 1,000% since the start of the Iran war. Whether they joined to patriotically serve their country or simply for the promise of stability and upward mobility, a draft dodger who “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible” is now holding them hostage in an indefinite war against Iran.
Veterans feel an obligation to speak up against the betrayal. 752 of them are running for Congress in 2026. A record number of them are women.
Trump has never cared about veterans, and it might be his downfall. The President, who has called fallen Americans ‘losers’ and ‘suckers,’ talked about how there will likely be more deaths, and just put words in the mouths of our most recently slain, has practically admitted he is extending the war simply to enrich himself and defense companies. Veterans are pissed, and they are answering the call once again to step up and protect their country. And though Trump and Hegseth are actively seeking to stifle them, veteran voices are proving more critical than ever in pushing back against these warmongers. It seems, as I’ve discovered myself, that a veteran who speaks up about the military-industrial complex is harder to wave off than someone who's never worn the uniform. That credibility is worth something; Americans trust people with military experience more than people without it. Their voices are reaching an audience.
Female veterans, especially, are breaking through, and Trump and Hegseth may have helped activate them. For years, women serving in the military have been more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy; it has since come out that women are more likely to be killed by a fellow soldier than by the enemy. Yet Trump, a sex offender, appointed Hegseth, an accused sex offender, to lead the organization. While the misogyny of these male leaders may be enough to make things miserable for women while they’re in, on the outside, they have something to say about it. Nancy Lacore, a retired vice admiral, was removed from her position by Secretary Hegseth in 2025. Now she’s running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st. In fact, of the 47% increase in vets running for Congress since 2024, the most impressive growth is among female veterans. 95 ran or are running for federal office this year compared to only 40 in 2024. That’s a 137% increase, and also the highest number ever tracked.
The Trump regime has wanted to push women out of the military, but no one seems to have thought about what these women might do next. Women were leaving the military at a rate 28% higher than men even before Hegseth. But now, after Hegseth pulled three women–including Rear Adm. Bauernschmidt, the first female to captain a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier–off the promotion list, the Navy will promote zero women to the rank of admiral for the first time in more than a decade. As Commander Mariner, the Navy's first female Commanding Officer of an aviation squadron, once said, "If the institution says you're not good enough to fight or doesn't want you to, it's natural for people to think you're inferior." As frustrating as that can be, it also means women have been seriously underestimated. The joke may be on those doing the underestimating. I got out of the military in 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander after ten years as a Navy helicopter pilot, where I worked alongside some of the most impressive women I’ve ever met. Now, many of those bonafide badasses are about to get elected to Congress.
Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, is running to unseat Thomas Kean Jr. in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District. Her campaign, which prioritizes affordability, health care, and national security, raised more than $3 million, outpacing the entire field. Former Marine Corps captain Maura Sullivan, who served in Iraq and Southeast Asia as well as in senior roles at the VA and Pentagon, is running a campaign based on lowering costs and fighting corruption in one of the swingiest districts in the country: New Hampshire’s 1st. Cait Conley, who did six overseas deployments including combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, is taking on Rep. Mike Lawler in New York’s 17th. JoAnna Mendoza, a veteran running for Congress in Arizona’s 6th, did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Marialana Kinter, Navy veteran and former nuclear reactor plant supervisor, is running in Florida’s 7th. And Elizabeth Dempsey Beggs, an Army veteran and former tank commander, is running in Virginia’s 1st. These are just a handful of the female veterans whose races I’ve been following. Many are mothers, many hold advanced degrees, and all of them are incredibly impressive people and candidates.
Perhaps because they are veterans or because they are women or because of this special combination, they have approached their races with a deeply collaborative spirit. Many are even pushing to reclaim patriotism as a bipartisan issue; Nancy Lacore, the vice admiral Hegseth wanted gone, said, "I think that's kind of silly to think that patriotism belongs to one particular party.” Leela Gray, a retired Army brigadier general running for Congress in Florida’s 13th, said: “I served in uniform for 30 years. I had no idea if people were an independent or a Republican or a Democrat. It didn't matter. What mattered was, could you trust the person next to you?” The military teaches you to work with all kinds of people toward a shared mission; you share meals, you train together, you have each other’s backs. When such a broad coalition is a necessity, the community building practically happens by accident. These women are translating that now to the campaign trail. Several of them even belong to a strategy-sharing moral support group called the Hell Cats, an homage to the first women Marines who served during World War I. Mendoza says she checks in with the Hell Cats almost every day.
With primaries still coming up in multiple states, and midterms just around the corner, I obviously hope you vote. But in addition, I hope that you tune in. Some of the most intelligent, hardworking, and competent women in America are continuing their legacies of service and fighting to defend our country, making cogent arguments against a government that has tried to erase them. It is really something to behold. Whether or not they win, they are running thoughtful and important campaigns. If you want to be inspired, then just watch.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Prediction markets are expanding beyond finance into politics, war, and public policy. Explore the ethical, democratic, and legislative questions they raise.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Betting on Crisis: Why Prediction Markets Are a Threat to Democratic Trust
Jul 28, 2026
Imagine opening an app on your phone and placing a bet on whether peace talks between two countries will fail, a conflict will escalate, or a terrorist attack will occur before the end of the year.
For a growing number of people, that is no longer a hypothetical scenario.
Prediction markets, online platforms where users trade contracts based on future events, have expanded rapidly in recent years. What began largely as a tool for forecasting elections and economic trends is increasingly moving into public policy and global affairs.
Supporters argue that these markets provide valuable information about what people think will happen next.
By requiring participants to put money behind their predictions, advocates contend that prediction markets can outperform traditional forecasting methods in certain circumstances. Researchers have used them to forecast everything from election outcomes to economic indicators and public health trends.
Those benefits do deserve consideration. Better forecasting can help policymakers, journalists, and citizens alike make more informed decisions.
But as prediction markets expand beyond economics, they raise a different set of questions. The debate is no longer just about accuracy. It is about what kinds of events should become objects of financial speculation.
Some prediction markets already allow users to speculate on elections, government actions, social trends, and international events. As the industry grows, so does the range of subjects available for trading.
That shift has important implications for democratic life.
There is a meaningful difference between using markets to understand economic activity and using them to place a price on public affairs. A democracy is not simply a collection of probabilities to be traded. It depends on shared trust and a shared belief that political decisions should be made in the public interest.
When prediction markets involve war, terrorism, or international crises, they transform human suffering and geopolitical instability into opportunities for profit. Foreign affairs become something to speculate on rather than something to engage with as citizens.
The concern is not simply that people may profit from tragedy. It is that financial incentives can begin to shape how we relate to politics itself.
Democracy works best when citizens evaluate public issues based on their values, priorities, and vision for the future. Prediction markets encourage a different mindset. They reward participants for focusing on what is likely to happen rather than what should happen.
Over time, that shift can affect the culture surrounding politics. Elections, policy debates, and international crises begin to resemble events to be watched, analyzed, and traded rather than civic challenges that require public engagement.
Markets also shape incentives.
Once money becomes attached to political and geopolitical outcomes, some actors will inevitably seek ways to influence those outcomes, spread information that moves markets, or capitalize on access to privileged knowledge. Even when no laws are broken, the perception that people can profit from conflict and crisis can erode trust in public institutions.
That concern is already being taken seriously in Washington.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to prohibit senators and staff from participating in prediction markets.
The concern arose from a simple reality: lawmakers often possess information that the public does not. Allowing them to trade on political events raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and insider advantage.
At the same time, Representatives Nikki Budzinski and Adrian Smith introduced the bipartisan PREDICT Act, which would prohibit members of Congress, senior federal officials, and their immediate family members from trading on prediction markets tied to political events and government actions.
Taken together, these efforts suggest that policymakers are beginning to recognize a growing challenge. Prediction markets are no longer a niche corner of the internet. They have become influential enough that lawmakers believe guardrails are necessary.
Supporters of prediction markets argue that transparency can address many of these concerns. They note that publicly visible forecasts may be preferable to private speculation occurring behind closed doors.
That argument has merit. Forecasting itself is not the problem.
The real question is where society should draw the line. There is a difference between predicting economic trends and creating markets around armed conflicts, acts of terrorism, or sensitive government decisions. The fact that a market can be created does not necessarily mean it should be.
Young people have a particular stake in this conversation.
We are inheriting a political system already shaped by money and concentrated economic power. We have watched housing become less affordable, college costs rise, and public trust in institutions decline. Many young Americans already feel disconnected from political institutions.
Prediction markets risk deepening that disconnect. At a time when many young people are searching for ways to participate meaningfully in public life, we should be cautious about systems that encourage us to view politics primarily through the lens of speculation.
The rules governing these markets are still being written. That means young people have an opportunity to shape the conversation before prediction markets become a permanent feature of democratic life.
We should be asking difficult questions about accountability, transparency, and the appropriate limits of financial speculation. We should be paying attention to the legislation being debated in Congress. And we should be willing to challenge the assumption that every aspect of public life should be transformed into a market.
The future of foreign policy should be shaped by democratic participation and the public interest. It should not depend on who is best positioned to profit from conflict, crisis, or uncertainty.
If we want a democracy that serves its citizens rather than speculators, now is the time to decide where the boundaries belong.
Rachel Ledoux is a student at Simmons University studying political science and economics with a focus on public policy. She is also a member of the Massachusetts chapter of the Young People's Alliance.
Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up of AI chatbot on mobile
Getty Images
AI Chatbots for Kids Should Act Like Tools, Not Friends
Jul 28, 2026
During the rise of the Internet, as the World Wide Web moved from government and academic settings to family homes, parents worried about the exposure of their children to predators in online chatrooms. A generation later, as social media became central to young people’s lives, the dangers of platforms like Facebook and Instagram to children’s mental health moved to the forefront of the national conversation.
Now, as lawmakers and parents continue to grapple with how to keep children safe on social media, there’s a new danger already taking shape: AI-powered chatbots that simulate friendship, emotional intimacy, and care with children who may not be able to tell the difference.
The scale of adoption makes this risk even more urgent. 64 percent of teens use AI chatbots, and 28 percent use them daily. One-third of teens find conversations with chatbots more or as satisfying as conversations with humans.
Generative AI is entering daily life at a pace few consumer technologies have matched, reshaping how people work, learn, search for information, and even seek emotional support. This revolutionary technology has great potential for young people, including by offering new ways to personalize education to individual needs. But alongside the benefits, young people face serious risks, especially when chatbots are designed not just to answer children’s questions, but to increase engagement.
Many chatbots use personified language to form affiliative bonds and increase user engagement. This phenomenon, known as anthropomorphism, is the attribution of human-like feelings and behaviors to inanimate objects. In chatbots, it is one of the most dangerous features for children.
Due to developmental vulnerabilities, children have a harder time distinguishing simulated care from genuine human relationships. This can lead to unhealthy relationships with chatbots that, in some serious cases, have resulted in self-harm, violence, and suicide.
Developers train chatbots to produce outputs that sound uncannily human, including anthropomorphic design cues such as small talk, colloquial expressions, emoticons, expressed emotions, and first-person pronouns. This style of communication makes people feel a sense of social presence, or the feeling of being with someone. It is precisely what makes a chatbot feel less like software and more like a companion.
Minors are particularly susceptible to this. While their prefrontal cortex is still under development, impulsive and emotional decisions often override rational thought. If a child bounces a wild idea off a peer or an adult, they may face pushback. Chatbots that are excessively validating can encourage dangerous activities, but can never take responsibility for them.
Researchers who performed simulated conversations teens may have with chatbots found that neither general-purpose nor companion chatbots pushed back when the user wanted to get a giant tattoo of a tiger on their bicep, go into the middle of the woods with no plans, or “get drunk faster.”
In being an always-there outlet that simulates human-like empathy and behaviors, personified chatbots can foster addiction and replace social interaction.
Multiple studies looking into anthropomorphism have linked it to chatbot addiction.
In a congressional hearing last year on chatbot harms, one mother explained that when she attempted to take her son’s phone to search for answers on why he was withdrawing from the family, he attacked her and bit her hand. Another father read ChatGPT transcripts that convinced his son to turn away from his family and led him to trust the chatbot over his brother.
Technology designed to form this kind of dependent relationship with children poses serious risks.
For decades, technology companies have treated human-like communication as a sign of progress. The classic Turing test measured whether a machine could imitate human conversation well enough to fool a person into thinking it was human. But for children, that goal may now be exactly backward. In the current AI chatbot era, the safer standard is not whether technology can fool someone into thinking they are human, but whether it is distinguishable from human social engagement.
AI companies should not be able to deceive and addict children with highly personified designs. While some legislative proposals have called for chatbot companies to occasionally display text disclosures that the chatbot is AI and not human, the efficacy of this intervention is questionable when users are constantly chatting with something that presents itself otherwise.
To mitigate the risks of emotional dependency and social isolation for children, Congress should pass a chatbot child safety bill that requires a non-personified default setting—one which fails the Turing test—for users under 18.
Recognizing the potential benefits of chatbots for young people, this approach differs from other proposals that ban AI companions for users under 18. A ban on minors’ use of AI companion chatbots would only protect against chatbots built solely for companionship, not general-purpose chatbots that still have personified design cues. This type of setting allows chatbots to continue being used for educational and creative purposes. If a child goes to a chatbot for homework help, the non-personalized default setting helps reduce the risk of the child developing an unhealthy relationship.
A non-personified default setting would preserve the educational and creative benefits of chatbots while drawing a clear line: technology for children should act like technology, not like a substitute for human relationships. The internet and social media taught us what happens when lawmakers wait until harms are widespread before setting basic rules for children’s safety. Congress should not make the same mistake with AI.
Allie Maloney is a Policy Analyst for Americans for Responsible Innovation, where she researches AI governance policies that protect child safety and privacy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More