The country’s two largest school districts — New York City and Los Angeles — banned most student use of artificial intelligence in classrooms for this school year as anxiety over AI’s effect on learning intensifies.

The Los Angeles Unified School District announced last week that it is barring student use of generative AI on school-issued devices for the current school year. Generative AI creates new text, images or other content following a user’s instructions. During the school year, a committee will produce recommendations for use of the technology in future years.

New York City Public Schools last week announced a similar but less broad approach. The district put in place a one-year moratorium on generative AI for children from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. 

High school students will have to complete 45-minute AI literacy modules twice a year. Some career-focused AI use will be allowed and some high schools will be permitted to test AI pilot programs.

The restrictions, which New York officials said will affect 600,000 students, will allow time to study the technology’s impacts. 

“The tech industry wants us to believe that A.I.-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a news release. “We do not see it that way.” 

Chicago officials may follow suit. About half the candidates running for the Chicago Board of Education this November have signed a pledge calling for a three-year moratorium on generative AI use in the public school classrooms.

Smaller school districts around the country have taken similar steps. Districts in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Texas and Washington have blocked or limited tools such as ChatGPT, while some allow approved platforms under teacher supervision.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Three states this year have enacted laws that require or allow schools to use mobile, wearable, wireless or silent panic alarms to quickly summon emergency responders.

The new laws in Illinois, Virginia and West Virginia bring the number of states with such laws to 13, with 10 of them acting since 2023. Another dozen states have legislation pending.

Known as Alyssa’s Law, the measures are named for 14-year-old Alyssa Alhadeff, one of 17 people killed during the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Make Our Schools Safe, a nonprofit founded by Alhadeff’s mother, has advocated for the legislation.

Although all the laws are grouped under the Alyssa’s Law name, they involve different technologies. While some of the laws require schools to use a particular device, others just allow schools to consider implementing some sort of emergency alert system.

Texas, for example, requires silent panic alert technology in classrooms, while Utah mandates that certain members of the school staff wear mobile alert devices. Virginia allows school boards to equip employees with wearable silent panic alarms, but doesn’t require it. The laws also differ in how the devices connect with police or other emergency responders. Funding mechanisms also differ from state to state.

The cost of such systems varies. But several years ago, the school board in Gwinnett County, Georgia, the largest in the state, approved $7 million to purchase the CrisisAlert system from CENTEGIX, an Atlanta-based technology company that provides emergency response systems to schools and hospitals. The CrisisAlert system provides school staff members with a wearable button that can be used to call for help.

A report released earlier this year by CENTEGIX found that 88% of the more than 346,000 alerts generated by its wearable panic-button systems during the 2025-2026 school year involved everyday issues such as fights and students leaving campus without permission.

Ten percent of the alerts were medical emergencies and 2% were for suspicious behavior or a campuswide emergency.

“Wearable incident response badges help reduce delays by enabling staff to discreetly initiate alerts from anywhere on campus,” the report states. “Their value comes not only from speed, but from their ability to deliver clear, reliable communication.”

But Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a consulting firm, said the fact that relatively few of the alerts were for emergencies suggests that schools should not be mandated to use panic buttons or similar technologies.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

New housing projects can sometimes stall out as a developer applies to city or county planning boards and goes through cycles of inspections, reviews and approvals. 

Now, cities are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence to address one of the most persistent sources of housing permitting delays: incomplete applications. And two new streams of federal money aim to help them.

AI can handle time-intensive tasks such as scanning applications and flagging errors. The aim, some city officials say, is to eliminate repeated rounds of corrections that can add weeks or months to the process — but to leave final decisions in the hands of human reviewers.

The sweeping new federal housing law enacted last month creates an Innovation Fund with $200 million annually for local efforts to speed up permitting. And the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is offering up to $3 million in grants for local governments to deploy automated building code permitting systems.

Syracuse, New York, applied for one of the HUD grants, along with cities across the country, including Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Mobile, Alabama; and Richland, Washington. 

Vincent Scipione, chief information officer for Syracuse, told Stateline that if the city wins the grant, it would open up a competitive bidding process for vendors and ask them about two big topics: data governance and algorithm design. The city wants to install an AI system to assist developers to file more complete applications upfront thus reducing time needed for revisions.

“Who owns the data that is being handled, and how is it being handled? That’s important,” Scipione told Stateline. “If it ends up being an AI-based solution, then algorithms that are involved and we need to ask what they are going to be handling?” 

Large cities including Baltimore, Denver and Los Angeles have recently launched AI tools to streamline housing permitting, and smaller cities such as Everett, Washington; Lebanon, New Hampshire; and Naples, Florida, are following suit.  

Texas’ Harris County, which includes Houston, this month put $750,000 toward an artificial intelligence program meant to speed up the permitting process for new construction projects.

The Denver City Council voted in March to approve a five-year contract for an AI Guided Plan Review platform to reduce permitting backlogs, for around $4.6 million. A city official said only about 37% of applications are accepted on the first round, and the goal is to increase that to 80% with the new tool. 

The lone dissenting vote — council member Flor Alvidrez — raised concerns about the inaccuracies of AI systems generally. She also said local architects and developers raised concerns with her that AI may not be ready to handle the complexity of zoning codes and site-specific conditions. 

Matt Mudd, press secretary for Louisville, Kentucky, Mayor Craig Greenberg, told Stateline the city is testing an AI-assisted residential permitting system aimed at reducing delays caused by incomplete applications. The pilot uses property information, Geographic Information System (GIS) data and local permitting requirements to flag missing or incomplete information before an application reaches a reviewer, with early testing capable of reducing “avoidable” resubmissions by 50% or more, Mudd said.

The project is in the testing phase with a small group of builders and has not yet launched publicly. Mudd said employees remain responsible for permit reviews and final decisions.

CivCheck

Honolulu was one of the first cities to introduce AI into its permitting process with a tool called CivCheck. That program examines building permit applications to check applications against local codes and bylaws, flag missing information and guide applications through corrections. 

Dawn Takeuchi Apuna, director of the city and county of Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting, said the better the quality and completeness of the applications, the better and faster the department’s review.

Prior to agreeing to work with CivCheck, Takeuchi Apuna said, city officials made sure the vendor knew that they weren’t looking to replace staff. She wanted AI to replace time spent by city planners reading incomplete applications and sending them back, and free them up for more face-to-face meetings with developers.

The rollout of Honolulu’s overhaul of its decades-old permitting process, which included a cloud-based platform called HNL Build as well as CivCheck, wasn’t entirely smooth, however. An anonymous survey of more than 150 employees — half the staff — in the weeks after HNL Build launched provided almost universally negative feedback and many urged  a return to the old system, the Honolulu Civil Beat reported.  

The median wait time to obtain a new building permit dropped to 2.5 months from August through April — a 40% decrease compared with the same period a year earlier, a Civil Beat review found.

So far, Honolulu has reported that CivCheck pre-screening has dropped permit reviews from an average of 3.4 review cycles per application to 1.4 cycles for single- and two-family residential projects. A single review cycle is the time spent by a planner examining a permit application, identifying problems or incomplete information, sending it back to the applicant for corrections, and then reviewing the revised application. 

CivCheck applications averaged 7.7 corrections, compared with 23.5 corrections for applications that did not use CivCheck, and the average time an applicant spent going through the city’s permitting process decreased from 73 days to 32.5 days, both officials from the city and county of Honolulu and CivCheck told Stateline.

“We want to get back to just the face-to-face and the more complex part of the review,” Takeuchi Apuna said. 

She added that AI “doesn’t necessarily catch or know how to make the decision on” the grayer areas of a project — where a proposal might meet basic requirements on paper but have unusual site conditions or neighborhood impacts — while a planner knows the context and ambiguities to determine how a rule or code applies.  

Seattle also crunched the numbers during its pilot of CivCheck and found it was 87% accurate on application completeness checks and 92% accurate on design-compliance checks. CivCheck showed an approximate 50% reduction in average days for intake review of permits and a 35% reduction in correction cycles per review.

However, Seattle officials noted in their reports that while CivCheck showed promise, the city was not ready to adopt it fully. As of its June 2026 report, the city was still exploring funding and logistical support for tools such as CivCheck. 

CivCheck told Stateline it was working with more than 20 cities, ranging from pilot projects to full implementation. 

“When you can remove three, four or five review cycles of feedback and turn that into one review cycle, that’s where you start to see material improvements in permit turnaround times,” said Cyrus Symoom, co-CEO of Clariti Software, a community development and permitting solutions provider that acquired CivCheck. 

Their tool, Symoom said, is solely to be used as a fact-checker but isn’t meant to replace or take the place of human decision making on permits. Ultimately, if a mistake is made, it’s up to the planner to properly vet that information.

“If you’re just gonna take the existing (permitting) process and bring it digital without an idea of what part of the process you want to fix, you’re not gonna see any real change,” he said. 

A two-way street

Zhenia Dulko, a planner and researcher with the educational and membership organization American Planning Association, said that group has identified more than 70 state and local cases of AI being used across planning functions, including 13 for zoning and development. 

While automation can take technical and onerous work off planners’ plates, Dulko believes  it allows planners more time for the work AI cannot perform such as talking to residents, connecting stakeholders to projects and front-facing public engagement. 

“AI will help speed up some of this work but there’s a lot of this planning work that doesn’t need AI because humans want to talk to humans about their ideas and visions, and find a way to finish that project.”

Dulko said planners also consider factors such as the surrounding community, inclusion and equity goals that may be harder for an automated system to replicate.

“Efficiency in terms of numbers is important but in terms of time it’s even more important,” Dulko said. “But we just should not miss these very other important things. We should remember that this is just one part of the permitting equation.” 

An August 2026 Journal of Urban Economics paper looked at Los Angeles data on development timelines for all multifamily housing projects permitted by the city between 2010 and 2022. The analysis estimated that reducing approval times by 25% could have increased the rate of housing production by almost 24%, if the researchers accounted for both already-started projects that would have been finished sooner and the effect of incentivizing new development. 

But some city officials caution that while AI can help speed the permitting process, applicants are responsible for some of the delays.

“I think a lot of people assume that it’s all on the local permitting agencies, and think we’re this big black box that no one can figure out what we’re doing and that we’re just sitting on applications,” said Takeuchi Apuna. “It’s important to educate people and let them know that the applicant plays a major role. CivCheck helps address that role, but permitting is really a back-and-forth process. Applicants account for at least 50% of that whole dance and the actual review time.”

Saf Rabah, CEO and founder of Govstream.ai, an AI tool that has contracted with Louisville and Bellevue, Washington, says the permitting process is a two-way street that relies on both city and developer. He said the process could use more guidance from cities to help applicants who may not be well-versed with building permitting.

“A lot of people end up applying for the wrong permit and go down this rabbit hole when they upload their plans. There is no validation. There is no guidance. There is literally nothing. It is a minefield of ‘gotchas’ in front of a builder,” said Rabah. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.  

Veteran homelessness dipped slightly from 2024 to 2025, according to the latest results from the January 2025 point-in-time count.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development counted 32,495 veterans experiencing homelessness, 387, or 1.2%, fewer than the previous year. HUD counted 18,877 veterans in shelters, and 13,518 living unsheltered in places not meant for habitation.

Twenty-five states recorded increases in veteran homelessness from 2024 to 2025, and 23 recorded decreases. Just two states — Alaska and Massachusetts —  saw no change.

The state with the largest increase, by raw numbers, was Oregon, which saw 228 added veterans, a 16% increase. Pennsylvania saw an increase of 98 veterans, a 14% increase, while New York, with an additional 93 homeless veterans, had a nearly 8% increase.

Mississippi had the largest percentage increase, rising 88%, going from 40 homeless veterans in 2024 to 75 a year later. Utah and Wyoming saw increases of 36% and 30%, respectively.

California recorded the largest numerical decline, with 624 fewer veterans experiencing homelessness, a 7% dip to 8,686. Florida declined by 192, while Indiana and Illinois each recorded 79 fewer homeless veterans. North Dakota’s numbers dropped 36% to 28 homeless veterans.

Since 2010, veteran homelessness has fallen by more than 56%, reaching an all-time low in 2025, and it’s been one of the few sustained decreases in any subset of homelessness during that time span. Details from this past January’s point-in-time count have not been released.

Adam Ruege, principal of policy and evaluation at Community Solutions, a national nonprofit that works with cities, counties and states to reduce homelessness, said the long-term decline resulted from sustained federal investments in housing and mental health services dating back to 2009. 

States have taken a bigger role in addressing veteran homelessness, with programs ranging from incentives for landlords, to coordinated services.

“Twenty years ago, being a veteran increased your likelihood of being homeless,” said Ruege, who previously worked for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “What we’re seeing states do now, is that they are filling the gap between what the federal response isn’t doing and what localities can’t do because of funding constraints. 

In July, New Jersey announced that its Bringing Veterans Home initiative saw more veterans finding housing than entering homelessness. According to state officials, since the initiative launched in November 2024, it has permanently housed more than 2,500 veterans, backed by more than $30 million in state and federal money. There’s pending legislation to codify the program.

In March, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs had a statewide by-name registry that allows agencies and service providers to coordinate individual cases instead of making veterans navigate programs independently. The registry, at last update, showed 150 veterans experiencing homelessness, dropping 25% in a year and 41% in two years.

States making efforts to incent or spur landlord participation in voucher and other housing programs, Ruege said, is one of the biggest steps toward getting veterans into permanent housing.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a statewide measure in June that created a pilot program getting landlords to participate in a federal voucher program that compensates landlords for holding a vacant unit for up to 45 days while a veteran prepares to move in and reimburse up to $2,000 in qualifying property losses beyond the security deposit.

Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed a law in April that establishes an incentive program that can give grants to nonprofits for landlord and housing provider incentives, risk-mitigation payments and veterans’ past due rent.

“I think a big factor in their success has been recruitment of landlords,” said Ruege. “It’s just a matter of political and private will, and in some ways, the will of a landlord, to make strides in cutting down homelessness on the local level.” 

California announced $109.6 million in July for 278 permanent supportive homes across four communities, including 103 units reserved for veterans.

In March, Pennsylvania awarded about $805,000 from its Veterans’ Trust Fund to county agencies and nonprofits, including programs providing emergency housing assistance, residences, for veterans leaving homelessness and services for veterans exiting homelessness.

Erin Healy, a principal for large-scale change at Community Solutions, said veterans have often been treated differently from other groups experiencing homelessness.

“So, there is a sense of urgency around veteran homelessness, which doesn’t necessarily exist, even though it should, for all homelessness,” Healy said. “But we know these solutions and more empathy can still work for these other groups that are experiencing homelessness.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling gave governments greater latitude to enforce public camping restrictions, at least 14 states and more than 350 cities have adopted tougher laws targeting camping, sleeping or other activities associated with unsheltered homelessness. 

Indiana, for example, enacted a statewide public camping ban that took effect in July, while Georgia and Oklahoma have adopted laws that can hold local governments accountable for failing to enforce restrictions on public camping and related conduct.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

As a new school year begins, some classrooms may use artificial intelligence tools to flag a student struggling with classwork, track attendance or try to raise reading scores.

But as school districts make decisions on which tools are safe and worth spending thousands or millions of dollars on, some officials feel overwhelmed by the array of choices. Some states and districts have begun offering guidance for vetting AI purchases, but educators and experts say districts are still carrying much of the burden on their own.

While school districts have long wrestled with education technology purchases, AI is different because the industry is moving faster than districts and states can keep up with, said Mark Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the conservative-leaning think tank the American Enterprise Institute. 

“There’s always an asymmetry between what the providers know and what the districts know,” Schneider told Stateline. “And the question is, can we set up mechanisms for helping the districts understand what’s going on and choosing better.”

Billions of dollars are at stake. The overall U.S. education technology market, which includes computers, software and digital content, generated almost $48 billion in revenue in 2024 and is expected to reach more than $90 billion by 2030, according to Grand View Research. The AI in education market in the United States generated about $2.5 billion in revenue last year and is expected to exceed $15 billion by 2033, the group said.

Scott Langford, superintendent of Sumner County Schools in Tennessee, said his district decided to test AI to address plateauing middle school reading scores. Langford said the district wanted to know whether AI could give students immediate feedback and help teachers see, in real time, where students struggled during regular classroom instruction.

“You have to identify what you need,” Langford said. “The (AI edtech) market is so overwhelming for districts and for vendors. … Most of them don’t really do much that drives any kind of change for students.” 

Sumner first tried Coursemojo — an AI-powered literacy tool used to support classroom instruction and provide real-time feedback to students and teachers — in a five-day micro-pilot in a sixth grade classroom, then piloted the tool in half of its sixth grade classrooms. Langford said the strongest tools are not the ones that replace teachers, but the ones that “help them see student understanding more quickly.”

Sumner has continued using Coursemojo after the pilot, Langford said.

The Allentown School District, a large, urban district in Pennsylvania, uses a two-phase review process for AI programs that Superintendent Carol Birks said includes non-negotiables such as student safety and data security. Vendors must ensure that all user-generated data and chat logs remain the exclusive property of the district, and vendors must explicitly state that student data will not be sold or used to train AI models.

Birks said that while districts are making these decisions on AI tools, state and federal guidance would be helpful. In addition to Coursemojo, the district also uses other AI platforms like Google’s Gemini.

“A significant challenge is that the onus of making these decisions is placed entirely back on the individual school district,” said Birks. “Although Allentown has built strong internal capacity to handle these responsibilities, guidance from the state level on artificial intelligence vetting or protections would greatly assist school districts.”

What vetting looks like

In most cases, vendors must sign a data processing agreement, complete a security questionnaire and pass legal, privacy and security reviews before a tool can be approved for use in schools. And some states already have laws governing traditional education technology purchases and student data protections. But many districts haven’t laid out best practices or recommendations for how school districts enter contracts with vendors or even bidding processes for certain tools. 

And some AI use in classrooms has drawn criticism and legal action. Students and parents in Arizona and Kansas have filed federal lawsuits challenging school districts’ use of Gaggle — a student-safety monitoring platform that scans activity on school-issued accounts and devices — saying it violated their constitutional rights. In Los Angeles, the superintendent of public schools resigned after the district paid $3 million for an AI chatbot from a company called AllHere, which later filed for bankruptcy and whose founder was charged with fraud.

State education boards and agencies, which already regulate contracts for textbooks, transportation and student data systems, have filled in some gaps with vetting and procurement guidance for districts.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education instructs schools to understand who controls the data entered into any AI tool, examine third-party data-sharing practices, limit data collection to what is necessary, keep a human “in the loop” if the tool is being used for grading and discipline, and assess whether it improves student performance. 

New York City Public Schools updated its privacy and security review process to include standards for AI, require vendors to disclose what their AI tools are capable of, prohibit the use of student data to train AI models and meet transparency requirements so tools can be explained to families and students. 

Chicago Public Schools released an AI Guidebook governing the use of AI software and models and in December began blocking unapproved third-party AI products from its network.

“Chicago Public Schools welcomes the promising innovation of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning, while safeguarding the development of students’ foundational skills and critical thinking,” a Chicago Public Schools spokesperson wrote to Stateline. 

The U.S. Department of Education has provided little guidance to districts about AI purchases.

The Southern Regional Education Board — a consortium of 16 Southern states that provides guidance on school issues — published an AI procurement and evaluation checklist last year for K-12 schools. 

Leslie Eaves, program director of project-based learning at the board who co-led the AI commission, said districts should first let adults test AI tools before placing them in front of students. She cautions that teachers should review AI-generated material before using it in the classroom and they need to trust their experience and expertise. 

“Anything with AI is a risky click,” she said. “There’s a lot of tool makers out there that are going to sell you their product and they’re going to say it’s the biggest and best in everything … At the end of the day, humans are the ones who will know what’s best for their schools and students.”’

Janice Mak, an associate director of curriculum and pedagogy at Arizona State University’s Learning Engineering Institute, says districts should evaluate whether an edtech tool is accessible, explainable, grounded in learning science and solving a real educational need.

“State level policy or guidance only goes so far, and there’s also a research gap and there’s also a policy gap,” Mak told Stateline.

Mak said she heard from a middle school teacher piloting an AI tool who noticed English learners were being unfairly penalized or misread by the system. The students noticed the bias, she said, and the teacher used it to teach them about algorithmic bias and how AI systems are trained.

‘A tall order for districts’

Still, districts are being asked to do too much on their own, said Sue Thotz, director of outreach for Common Sense Education at Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that researches and evaluates media and technology used by children and schools.

Thotz points to a California data privacy agreement, which districts can use to ensure vendors comply with the state’s student data privacy laws, as a way to take some burden off districts by creating a blanket agreement vendors sign onto. The California Student Privacy Alliance, which developed the agreement, gives school systems a searchable database of vendors that have signed, reducing the need for each district to negotiate privacy terms from scratch. 

“Placing the burden upon a district to make sure that every single vendor they’re working with is in full compliance with their state and federal laws when it comes to privacy,” she said. “That’s a tall order for districts that are already stretched very, very thin.” 

Districts may also be sorting an accumulation of a decade’s worth of technology purchases, said Tracy Weeks, senior director of education policy and strategy at Instructure, the education technology company that makes the Canvas learning management system. 

An Instructure report found districts had access to an average of 3,001 digital tools, while students and educators used only four of those tools on average. The report, based on Canvas launch data from more than 12.6 million K-12 users, said the volume of available tools has teachers navigating too many platforms and districts overseeing student data across vendors.

“What I think has happened is that I think we did a lot of digital hoarding,” Weeks said. Now, she said, districts are asking, “What are the things we should actually keep? What do we need to use? What can actually move the needle?”

Shrinking budgets and the expiration of federal pandemic-era funding has also forced districts to scrutinize purchases. 

Dacia Toll, co-founder of Coursemojo, the software used by Sumner County and Allentown, said districts should first ask whether an AI product aligns with what is known about cognitive science and strong teaching methods. 

“Education has had a long-standing issue with vetting edtech for safety, usability and efficacy, and I just think AI is making that more pronounced,” she told Stateline. “There are a handful of additional risks, and there’s so much hype right now that I think some districts are feeling like they’re behind if they’re not actively implementing AI.” 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

The Trump administration is increasing its efforts to turn more control of federal education money to the states as it continues working to dismantle the Education Department.

Six states have received waivers allowing them to consolidate more than $109 million in federal education funding and bypass certain requirements for local education agencies, Kirsten Baesler, assistant secretary for the department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, told Stateline in an interview.

The consolidation of four funding streams into one means the money can be used more flexibly by the states with Returning Education to the States waivers — Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, South Dakota and Vermont. Some states chose to put that money toward statewide literacy or math improvement efforts. Indiana will run a pilot program allowing up to 15% of its districts to combine two funding streams that had been focused separately on teachers and students and to alter requirements for all schools on college and career readiness measures when calculating a high school’s performance rating. 

It’s a part of a growing push by the Trump administration to turn federal education measures to state control. Beyond the six states that received these waivers, 22 states have received Education Flexibility Partnership, or Ed-Flex authority, which allows states to waive certain federal education requirements for school districts without seeking separate permission from the Department of Education each time. 

That’s the highest number of states in the program’s 32-year history, Baesler said. 

Those states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. 

While many public school district staff welcome the waivers, some state education groups have opposed them. Some have argued that consolidating federal funding weakens guardrails that ensure money goes to the specific populations and programs they were meant to serve. In Arkansas, for example, the Arkansas Education Association warned that greater flexibility would reduce transparency and possibly shift money away from formula-based funding for high-need districts, the Arkansas Advocate reported. 

A state must request such a waiver. Baesler said department officials are working with states before they submit applications to determine whether their goals require a waiver, an amended state plan or could already be done under existing federal law.

Baesler also said state officials should take greater responsibility for identifying and pursuing their own education needs and priorities rather than waiting for direction from the feds.

“Don’t wait for the signal to come because what students in North Dakota need are going to be completely different than what Texas needs or Louisiana or Oregon or Washington,” Baesler said.

In September, the department will convene with state representatives to discuss results from a Learning Agenda Initiative which includes eight states: Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin, officials told Stateline. The program paired state education agencies with federally funded research and technical-assistance centers to examine state data and develop multi-year learning agendas identifying needs and ways to measure a state’s progress on its education priorities.

The department is also giving states additional points on some competitive grant applications when they design or help lead “Returning Education to the States” projects.

The future of the Department of Education has been a hot topic since President Donald Trump signed a March 2025 executive order directing Secretary Linda McMahon to take steps to close the department and push more control of education to the states. Congress, which created the department through a 1979 federal law, retains the authority to eliminate it.

But the department has begun to hand off some administrative duties to other federal agencies. 

Carissa Moffat Miller, CEO of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said at an National Conference of State Legislatures conference earlier this month that transferring federal programs between agencies could disrupt grant payments because the Education and Labor departments, for example, use different grant management systems. Those delays could lead districts to hold back spending or pull teacher contracts even if Congress appropriated the money, she said.

Moffat Miller said that federal funding accounts for about 12% of education funding, with the remaining 88% coming from state and local sources. Analysis from Education Week estimated that at least $12 billion in previously awarded federal education funds have been disrupted by administrative actions over the past year.

This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Carissa Moffat Miller’s name. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

Three states this year became the first ones to enact laws restricting companies from using personal data such as browsing history or shopping habits to set individualized prices on goods and services, a practice known as surveillance pricing.

The laws in Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey take different approaches to which retailers and products they cover, the discount exceptions they allow and how violations are enforced. 

Lawmakers in at least 11 states considered similar bills this year, but often faced opposition from business groups that say some of the legislation is overly broad.

Maryland’s new law, which was the first in the country and takes effect Oct. 1, applies to grocery stores of at least 15,000 square feet and third-party food delivery services. Under the law, these businesses are prohibited from using personal data to set a price for a specific shopper for most groceries. It does, however, allow loyalty programs, subscription prices and differences based on supply, location or operating costs. Businesses also have 45 days to correct a violation before the state can bring an enforcement action. 

New Jersey’s new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill in July, prohibits retailers from using personal data to set individualized prices for groceries and placed a one-year moratorium on the installation of new electronic shelf labels while the state studies their effects. Retailers with these shelf labels already installed can continue to use them and maintain them. 

“New Jersey families are already feeling the pressure of higher costs,” Sherrill said in a statement. “The last thing they need is companies secretly using their personal data to charge them more than someone else for the exact same product.”

Connecticut’s law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, broadly prohibits retailers and third-party delivery services from using surveillance pricing. It includes exceptions for discounts and certain price differences unrelated to a shopper’s personal data. 

Consumer advocates say surveillance pricing is difficult to detect because shoppers generally cannot see what another customer is being charged. Retail and technology groups have argued that overly broad restrictions could interfere with discounts and rewards programs and be expensive for businesses to comply.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

Championed as one of the most consequential and bipartisan federal housing laws in decades, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act enacted this month makes significant changes across federal housing policy.

Included in the 139-page law are a host of provisions that will restrict some institutional investors from buying homes, ease rules for manufactured housing and expand assistance for veterans. But some of its most notable provisions give local governments greater flexibility in using federal grants while introducing new financial rewards and penalties tied to housing production. 

This is especially important because states and cities — not the federal government — control most housing choices through zoning and land use regulations. So the law tries a new approach to nudge cities toward more housing.

The law allows certain federal block-grant funding to pay for new affordable housing construction, which previously had been forbidden. And for the first time, it provides incentives and penalties for cities to build faster.

“The federal government is going to give you a whole lot of carrots, a whole lot of support, and just a couple sticks, in order to encourage these communities to start building more housing,” said Ben Harrold, senior manager of public policy at the National Apartment Association.

The measure made it through a divided Congress in part because it “doesn’t actually come with a ton of new money for these programs,” said Andy Winkler, the managing director of housing and infrastructure policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.  

“There’s not one huge idea that’s going to change the dynamics of the housing market, but there are tons of small bills and provisions and programs that collectively really could have an impact.” 

The most immediate impact of the law could be making existing federal housing dollars easier to use for municipalities. 

Mark Kudlowitz, senior policy director for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation — a national nonprofit that finances affordable housing and other projects in urban and rural communities — said localities can now make decisions on where to spend existing federal dollars to increase supply. They also can start readying their local policies for potential funds from new incentive-laden programs.

“When we make it easier for the jurisdictions to deploy the funding, it’s doing everyone a favor, from the jurisdictions that have to manage these dollars to the federal government and then the developers that are ultimately receiving it,” said Kudlowitz. “It’s just decreasing costs and creating more efficiencies within the process.” 

Although Hartford, Connecticut, Democratic Mayor Arunan Arulampalam wishes the law contained more new funding for programs, he praises a $200 million annual competitive grant program for municipalities that increase housing supply. He also welcomes a pilot grant project to help more municipalities convert vacant and abandoned buildings into housing. 

“The thing that this bill actually does is make existing federal dollars more efficient and maybe more useful,” Arulampalam said. 

The new Innovation Fund will reward communities that demonstrate increases in housing supply with $200 million in annual competitive grants from fiscal 2027 through 2031. The housing increases can come from local governments and tribes reducing parking requirements, revising minimum lot sizes and building height, creating incentives for dense development, changing zoning laws, streamlining regulatory and environmental requirements, or eliminating restrictions on accessory dwelling units. 

“The Innovation Fund for flexible spending, which I think is the core of what the federal government should be doing for communities like Hartford that are actually building housing, it’s an exciting program,” Arulampalam said.

Block grant changes

The new law also makes significant changes to the Community Development Block Grant program that could make it easier to use the money to build affordable housing. The CDBG program helps states, cities and counties finance improvements to housing, but funds also can be used for infrastructure, economic development and other projects that are geared toward low and moderate-income residents. 

The new law now allows some grants to be used for construction. And it will reduce the money given to cities that don’t meet certain construction thresholds.

Under the CDBG State Program, states receive federal money and distribute grants to eligible smaller communities. Jenna Pomponi, director of advocacy and federal programs at the Council of State Community Development Agencies, said cities under 50,000 residents and counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, known as non-entitlement communities, especially rely on state agencies to conduct environmental reviews and administer complicated federal requirements.

“In a lot of small communities, they don’t have the capacity to do all the compliance work that’s required for a government to review, so the state agencies do that for them,” Pomponi said. 

The new law now allows the construction of affordable housing to be eligible for CDBG grants, capped at 20% of the amount allocated to a recipient. Before the law, CDBG funds were used for public facilities and infrastructure, rehabilitation of existing housing, public services and economic development.  Congress provided $3.3 billion for the CDBG program in fiscal year 2026. 

“It streamlines some really outdated requirements that were adding administrative burdens onto administering these grants, so I think essentially it’ll just make the money that we have go further in communities,” Pomponi said. “In the past, folks mostly used CDBG just to repair older homes, but now they can construct new affordable housing.”

Under the law’s Build Now provision, which applies to cities and urban counties receiving CDBG entitlement funding, funding will be based on the rate at which housing has grown. Recipients at or above the median growth rate will receive bonuses, while recipients below the median generally will face a 10% reduction. 

Exemptions apply to municipalities that meet its thresholds for both lower rents and home values, places where rental vacancy rates are above the national average, areas recently impacted by a major disaster or emergency declaration within the previous three years, and those that lack legal authority to update zoning or permitting ordinances. 

“This is the first time to my knowledge that the federal government will condition resources on the actual construction of new homes,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. “So this goes even a step further from other programs, which provide money to cities and states to just do reforms. This is actually tying money to outcomes.” 

Garcia said that the Build Now provision and changes to CDBG funding will make cities, notably bigger and high-cost cities, motivated to do what’s necessary to get housing production moving and avoid any loss of funding.

Ultimately, zoning can only go so far, as Garcia noted that economic conditions and the price of building could still make construction very costly.

“Cities don’t control interest rates, they don’t control tariffs, they don’t control the labor pool … so there may be instances where you actually have cities working in really good faith to try and get more homes out of the ground, but the broader economic conditions are just not in their favor.” 

Before the law passed, six organizations representing states, counties and local development agencies urged Congress to remove the Build Now provision, warning that tying CDBG dollars to short-term housing growth could make funding less predictable and that the metrics used to gauge growth could be slow and misleading. 

“The idea was to put the squeeze on local governments to play ball, so to speak, as far as, looking at some of their zoning reform or their local housing strategies,” said Jared Grigas, associate legislative director for community, economic and workforce development at the National Association of Counties, which signed the letter.

These funding conditions don’t factor in until fiscal year 2029 and remain in effect through fiscal year 2043.

Grigas said the final version of the law, with the three-year implementation window and exemptions, made the provision more agreeable.

“That gives us three years to get the word out to our folks that, ‘Hey, you might find yourself in this new universe where this might impact your CDBG allocations,’” Grigas said. “And here’s how you can plan ahead.” 

‘Next battle’

Federal funding for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development staffing was reduced by 24% in fiscal year 2026. And the guidance and implementation of at least 35 new or updated programs and regulations from the new law will be assigned to HUD — including the Innovation Fund and the Build Now provisions, according to the Urban Institute. 

Winkler, from the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the “next battle” in the realization of the ROAD Act is swift implementation of the new law from HUD to the local agencies.

Some are skeptical that HUD — without new funding for staffing — can manage the workload that comes with such an expansive to-do list.

“A lot of this will hinge on HUD’s ability to implement this law,” Pomponi said. “Some of us are concerned because HUD cut back so much of their staff last year when the administration changed over, and now they’re being handed this huge law to implement.”

Arulampalam, the Connecticut mayor, said Hartford will continue pursuing options such as  office conversions and vacant lot development while waiting to see whether Congress funds the law’s new programs.

“We are coming up with as many creative solutions as we can to solving the housing crisis,” he said. “The thing that limits us the most is the dollars we can put into it.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

The Trump administration is continuing its pushback against state artificial intelligence laws that it views as ideologically biased, proposing a new Federal Trade Commission policy.

The proposed policy statement, which is open for public comment through July 31, would affect how the FTC regulates AI companies. The agency said it’s meant to address concerns that “AI companies that distort their systems’ outputs to achieve undisclosed ideological objectives” could be deceiving consumers in violation of federal law.

“The FTC wants to hear from businesses and consumers about their experiences and concerns regarding the subversion of AI systems for ideological ends,” Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement.

The proposal specifically mentions a first-of-its-kind Colorado law that had banned “algorithmic discrimination,” or AI output that might lead to decisions disfavoring people on jobs, loans or healthcare based on their race, religion, gender and other protected categories. But the Colorado legislature already has repealed that provision. The revamped law instead focuses on regulating technology that results in “consequential decisions” for consumers. 

The controversial law prompted a lawsuit from xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, which the U.S. Department of Justice supported.

In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting state AI laws, including creation of a Department of Justice AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws. His order also directed the FTC to issue a policy statement on regulation of state laws that “require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models.” 

Stateline asked the FTC if there were any state and city laws that officials felt were currently in violation of federal laws, but received no response.

Tyler Thompson, a Denver-based lawyer with firm Reed Smith who tracks emerging technology law, said the FTC proposal is important because it raises the possibility that companies could face deceptive-practices claims based on how they tune, weight or steer AI models, which could also prompt state policy on the issue.

“Just the fact that companies could be tweaking their models and that could lead to a deceptive trade practice, I think is huge news,” Thompson said.

Thompson believes the legal battle and the FTC’s focus on restricting similar laws will lead to “a more niche” policy focus on AI – such as deepfakes, nonconsensual sexual content, children’s safety, companion chatbots and data centers — areas where there is bipartisan agreement.

Noah M. Kenney, founder and principal consultant of Digital 520, an AI governance, security and privacy consultancy, who also responded to the FTC’s request for public comment, said the proposed statement carries more political pressure rather than being an enforceable federal regulation.

“The real effect of this statement is signaling and pressure, not legal preemption, especially paired with the December executive order’s AI litigation task force.”

Kenney said there is also an irony in the federal government’s argument.

“A federal effort to dictate what counts as a ‘neutral’ or ‘accurate’ output raises its own First Amendment concerns about compelled speech,” he said.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.