They met top tech experts behind closed doors. Now these religious leaders are urging Congress to act.



The U.S. Catholic bishops have formed a task force on artificial intelligence, with Bishop Oscar Cantú of San Jose as its chairman. The September 16 announcement followed a meeting between the bishops' Administrative Committee and representatives of technology companies.

Cantú told Religion News Service that about seven technology experts from four companies spoke with roughly 30 bishops for two and a half hours. He said the discussion took place under Chatham House rules, which allowed the participants to speak candidly but limits what he can disclose about who said what.

John Paul II described technology as an ally of work that can become an enemy.

Afterward, more than a dozen bishops went to Capitol Hill and met with members of Congress. The bishops' conference says they urged lawmakers to adopt AI safeguards and legislation to protect children online.

Cantú described the task force's work to RNS: continue talking with AI developers, advocate for legislation, teach bishops and dioceses how the technology works, and report to the Vatican's AI commission. He gave no timetable for that work.

What the bishops have already asked for

Pope Leo XIV's May encyclical, "Magnifica humanitas," prompted the bishops' response. Blaze's Joseph MacKinnon covered its warnings, including the pope's concerns about automated killings and the extraction of personal data. The new story is what U.S. bishops will do with those principles.

They aren't starting from zero. In a 2025 letter to congressional leaders, the bishops asked for human oversight of employment decisions and weapons systems, protections for children online, and public accountability for government AI use. They also warned about the water and power demands of data centers. The task force can press those positions with lawmakers while examining how the Church uses AI in its own institutions.

RELATED: DEI is trying to take over AI. These universities are leading the charge.

Alexey Yaremenko/Getty Images

The letter gives the task force something to measure itself against. It says AI should supplement human work and judgment. In education, health care and public services, the bishops warn that automated decisions can carry biases into consequential choices. What human oversight means in each setting still needs spelling out.

Is it appropriate for the job?

Economist E.F. Schumacher helped popularize the idea of appropriate technology in his 1973 book "Small Is Beautiful." A later U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report described it as fitting the scale and complexity of a tool to the job, while considering the needs and resources of the people who will use it.

The bishops have not used that label for their AI work, but it gives their call for human oversight a practical edge. Take hiring, which their 2025 letter specifically addresses. An AI system might help sort applications. If a manager cannot explain why it rejected a qualified applicant, however, putting that manager's name on the decision does not make the process accountable. The task force could spell out what a human reviewer must be able to see, correct, and explain.

Catholic teaching has its own language for this concern. In his 1981 encyclical "Laborem exercens," John Paul II described technology as an ally of work that can become an enemy when it strips workers of responsibility or replaces them.

That is now the question that the Catholic Church and all humanity are wrestling with. AI is here and unlikely to go away. How do we direct it into being a pro-human technology and not one that is ultimately destructive?

Congress, Ignore The Predatory Agents Trashing The ‘Protect College Sports Act’

Before Congress takes advice from the agents attacking the Protect College Sports Act, senators should ask a simple question: Who makes money if the bill fails?

Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?



President Trump’s call for a $5,000 “dividend” payment to all adult U.S. citizens is being widely criticized as fiscally unsound, grossly irresponsible, a cynical vote-buying scheme, and another political promise that will never come to fruition.

Trump’s plan, as he presented it in just a couple of throwaway sentences at the Republican Midterm National Convention in Dallas last week, is indeed all those things. It amounts to a Keynesian-style attempt to stimulate the economy temporarily by making people feel richer than they are, to be followed by the usual consequences of such fiscal monkeyshines: violent inflation and a subsequent grinding recession.

An unprecedented economic boom or dramatic revenue surge cannot be assumed in advance.

Trump, however, is a habitual dealmaker. What if congressional leaders were to respond to the president’s idea as a starting point for negotiations?

My suggestion: Agree with the president to pass a one-time tax cut of $5,000 for the 2027 fiscal year, paired with a permanent spending cap set at the 2019, pre-COVID-19 level and mandatory 2% additional reductions in the spending cap each year through 2040.

The tax cut would be payable immediately upon enactment and designated as refundable to all U.S. households that file a personal income tax return (whether they pay any income tax or not), thus fulfilling Trump’s promise.

Republicans would make a simple deal with the American people: $5,000 today for every adult citizen, in exchange for serious, desperately needed cuts in federal spending beginning in the next fiscal year and continuing through the next decade. Any congressional Democrats who want to do the right thing will be welcome to vote for it as well, of course.

For practical reasons, the spending cuts would need to begin with the 2028 fiscal year in October 2027, but the 2% annual spending cuts thereafter would easily offset the extra interest costs on the additional federal debt that the delay would create.

To implement the cuts, Congress would convert the federal portion of spending on Medicaid, SNAP, housing programs, higher education, and the like into block grants to the states, with the expenditures scaled down to the 2019 level. The legislation would institute 5% annual reductions in those block grants for subsequent years through 2040, essentially phasing them out of the federal fisc.

The move to block grants with annual downsizing would steadily transfer responsibility for welfare spending to the states, where it belongs. Federal redistribution programs are not explicitly permitted under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court should never have allowed Congress to establish those programs.

These welfare programs account for about 24% of the $7 trillion-plus federal budget, around $1.7 trillion. In 2019, they composed about $1 trillion. A return to that number would pay off a $1.3 trillion refundable one-year tax cut in less than two years, with a dozen years of much lower federal spending on the way.

RELATED: Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

If a 40% cut in spending on federal welfare programs sounds draconian and cruel, remember that the 2019 spending level was far from stingy. We needed cuts then, and we need them much more urgently now, even without Trump’s dividend payments. Investigations during President Trump’s current term suggest that elimination of entitlement fraud could lead to even greater cuts than what this plan would call for.

Congress should also consider cutting defense spending to provide further spending reductions.

In short, this would be a temporary tax cut and permanent spending cuts — the very opposite of the way things are ordinarily done in Washington D.C. The key element, and the unique opportunity here, is the political goodwill and appealing trade-off the $5,000 dividend checks would provide.

The only way to reverse the spending cuts would be through legislation signed by the president or a veto override. Trump would have every reason to refuse any attempt by Congress to restore the spending, especially given his track record of trying to implement limits on entitlement programs through executive orders. The same would be true for any Republican successors.

Moreover, the transfer of welfare responsibility to the states would eliminate congressional spending junkies’ ability to use these programs as a slush fund for buying votes. In addition, the money simply will not be there, given the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare.

This plan would allow Congress fiscal breathing space to develop a plan to transition Social Security and Medicare into private taxpayer accounts and transfer future responsibilities for those programs to the states. Social Security and Medicare are just as unconstitutional as the other entitlements, with the important difference that these were funded by people’s paychecks with the direct promise of repayment, a pledge the government must keep for current and prospective retirees.

Americans would be relieved to know that major Social Security cuts are off the table.

The plan should also make permanent all of Trump's executive orders that have reduced federal regulations — and add further regulatory relief.

RELATED: Trump’s interest-rate fantasy runs into debt gravity

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The large, one-year tax cut would spark an economic boom of possibly unprecedented proportions. Economic growth would cause federal revenues to rise dramatically in subsequent years, which would enable the government to begin paying down the existing federal debt.

The spending cuts would push down interest rates by greatly reducing the federal deficit and thereby raising the assurance that the federal government will be able to pay its debts, thus increasing the value of Treasury bonds and lowering interest costs.

This would reduce interest rates for all Americans, including for mortgages. That would help relieve the housing affordability problem.

The entitlement cuts would also put able-bodied people back to work and make them taxpayers instead of tax takers, raising revenues and cutting costs further. That would spur even more economic growth.

These would be impressive achievements. A political party that instituted this plan could create a permanent majority despite the inevitable mistreatment by the media and the opposition party, while returning the nation to constitutional rule. Most people dislike the current overspending, and people recognize that far too much of it goes to cheaters, grifters, and government cronies.

For the good of the American people, Trump and the congressional Republicans should prepare legislation to implement this full plan in the lame-duck session, immediately after the election, regardless of whether they win House and Senate majorities this fall. They would be giving the American people a great gift of economic prosperity and better government, and Democrats would not be able to reverse any of it, with a Republican president holding veto power.

The dirty secret behind Big Tech’s data center boom



The White House and Congress promise that data centers will not cost consumers a dime. That is like a husband pledging not to beat his wife as his fist draws blood.

The politicians who spent a year gaslighting the public about data centers’ power use now acknowledge the problem and promise to cover grid upgrades. But even as they propose legislation and tout a nonbinding industry pledge, data centers are already costing consumers. It is impossible for them not to.

The growing number and size of planned hyper-scale facilities will push electricity costs even higher.

This week, the House passed the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340) by a 417-3 vote. The bill establishes a federal standard that state regulators must consider but need not adopt. It would require large-load customers to cover the “full, incremental cost” of new or accelerated grid upgrades — not a full share of the existing system’s embedded fixed costs. That limitation helps explain the industry’s support.

If adopted and enforced, the standard could protect ratepayers. But utilities and data center companies already bury infrastructure costs among a region’s general power needs. A serious proposal would resemble Oklahoma’s House Bill 3724, which stalled in committee this year. It requires a high-demand facility to fund all infrastructure upgrades and bars utilities from allocating any cost of serving it to other retail ratepayers. That language closes the loopholes Congress leaves open.

The costs are not theoretical. Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, estimated that data center load accounted for $9.3 billion, or 63%, of the increase in revenues from the 2025/2026 capacity auction. It also found that data center load in the next two auctions increased customers’ bills by $13.8 billion. The monitor warns that the near-term impact will be even larger unless PJM addresses the problem.

PJM operates the nation’s largest competitive wholesale electricity market, serving about 67 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia. Its data center costs reach far beyond the communities hosting the facilities.

A Union of Concerned Scientists report identified $4.4 billion in transmission projects approved in 2024 across seven PJM states. Utility filings do not separate data center connection costs from transmission costs spread among all customers. In practice, those costs are folded into higher electricity rates.

The effects of Virginia’s data center boom are acutely felt in Maryland and West Virginia. Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel says data centers — mostly outside the state — caused about $9.3 billion of a $12.5 billion capacity-cost increase in one estimate. PJM’s capacity price jumped from $28.92 per megawatt-day for 2024-2025 to $269.92 for 2025-2026 — more than 800% — and has since reached about $333.

RELATED: Big AI broke the internet. Now it wants everyone else to fix it.

Joe Lamberti/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The growing number and size of planned hyper-scale facilities will push electricity costs even higher. It is far from clear that their products can justify trillions of dollars in capital spending while covering the full cost of their power. If the economics depend on shifting costs to the public, the industry’s pledge is worthless.

The bill and pledge also ignore the use of eminent domain to take property or easements for transmission lines serving data centers. NextEra Energy estimates its portion of the 500-kilovolt Mid-Atlantic Resiliency Link will cost $960 million. The project would cross parts of four states on its way to Northern Virginia’s data center corridor. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis estimates that West Virginia ratepayers could pay more than $570 million over the line’s 40-year life.

Meanwhile, hyper-scalers enjoy favorable federal tax treatment and lavish state and local abatements. Corporate income-tax receipts fell 25% during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2026, partly because the 2025 reconciliation law expanded deductions for business investment. Those provisions were not written exclusively for AI, but this capital-intensive industry is well positioned to use them. The boom is not purely a market phenomenon. Government favors are helping fuel it.

The first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you caused it. Until industry leaders and their allies in Washington confront the real cost of centralized AI, their promises about protecting consumers deserve no credibility.

Why Trump’s Plan To Stop Noncitizens From Rigging The Census Might Work This Time

The Trump administration just proposed the rule change that could finally deliver on 'one man, one vote.'

Trump Admin To Pay Americans Back For Biden’s Obamacare Overcharges

The rebates will only go to unsubsidized enrollees in 30 states.

He's alive! Mitch McConnell spotted at the Capitol



Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky returned to the Senate on Monday after a long absence due to his health issues.

The former leader of the Senate had been absent from Congress for three months before the newest session began Monday.

The slim Republican majority in the Senate meant his vote was pivotal toward passing any legislation opposed by the Democrats in the minority.

McConnell said in a statement that his recovery had been "a long and often frustrating process," according to Axios.

"Today, I'll cast my first Senate vote since I took a bad fall back in June," he added. "I'm really looking forward to being back on the Senate floor and seeing my colleagues."

He added that his recovery had been stymied by the "lingering effects" of his bout with polio in childhood.

The slim Republican majority in the Senate meant his vote was pivotal toward passing any legislation opposed by the Democrats in the minority.

"I'm still not quite back to 100%, but I've assured Leader Thune that, as I continue with physical therapy on the advice of my doctors," McConnell added, "I will do my best to be present for tough votes when our Conference needs me."

Reporters posted at McConnell's residence recorded video as the 84-year-old senator left his residence in a wheelchair on his way to the Senate.

In a brief statement at the Capitol, he said he was determined to vote on a farm bill and to punish Russia.

RELATED: Mitch McConnell’s replacement might be chosen in court first

McConnell is also expected to vote on the nomination of Matthew Byrne to be a district judge in Ohio.

"Elaine and I are very grateful for all the continued well wishes from our fellow Kentuckians, and I’m glad to get back to more of business as usual on their behalf this month," he added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrat used to model fetish gay sex attire



The private life of a Democrat running for Congress has made national news after old photos reveal he used to model leather sexual attire and other "bondage gear," according to a report from the New York Post.

The Post confirmed that Chris Gallant, a 37-year-old Democrat who is running to represent Long Island in Congress, modeled for Mr. S Leather, a sexual fetish company based in San Francisco. According to the Post, Gallant donned "collars, leather straps, neoprene, bondage gear, and more" in the product photos.

'As Chris began considering a future in public service, he asked that the photographs no longer be used.'

While the photos have since been removed from the Mr. S Leather website, they were posted there between 2011 and 2020 and can still be accessed via internet archives, the Post reported.

Attorney Sara Azari, who represents Gallant, confirmed the authenticity of the photos in a statement to the Post: "The photographs are authentic and were taken during a private, consensual photo session involving Chris and his then-partner, with whom he was in a committed four-year relationship."

She added: "As Chris began considering a future in public service, he asked that the photographs no longer be used and that they be removed from the company’s website. Mr. S honored his request."

RELATED: 'People need God': Marty O'Donnell vows to save your grandchildren from Democrats

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

According to the Post, some of those photos apparently "depicted him in hardcore pornographic poses, including fully naked and having sex with another man" and even made their way to "hardcore" gay porn sites.

Azari indicated that Gallant "never intended to authorize unrestricted publication" of the photos by third parties.

Gallant has served in the Army National Guard for the past 20 years, his campaign website says, indicating the photos were taken and posted during his time with the Guard.

LGBTQ+ outlet Pink News is celebrating the news of Gallant's apparently pornographic past. "Congressional candidate modelled BDSM gear before turning to politics — and honestly, good for him," read the Pink News headline.

Gallant already has his work cut out for him running in the 1st Congressional District of New York against incumbent Republican Rep. Nick LaLota. LaLota has held the seat since 2022, and the Cook Political Report considers the district "solid R."

The Gallant and LaLota campaigns did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Politico Hocking Lobbyist PR Shows Just How Corrupt The Washington Media Bubble Is

Despite any hype about its 'Pro' service, its reporters often demonstrate that they don’t have any particular policy chops or expertise.