RIGHT FIGHT, WRONG GLOVES: The Real Cost of AI

As a new Congress prepares to take office, lawmakers should be asking whether artificial intelligence threatens more than our jobs and electricity bills.

America has no shortage of arguments against artificial intelligence. From disappearing jobs to rising electricity bills, the technology has become an increasingly convenient target for political criticism. With the midterm elections behind us and a new Congress preparing to take office, I think it’s time we reconsidered what deserves our attention.

For all the discussion surrounding AI’s economic and environmental consequences, one concern continues to receive comparatively little attention: what this technology could mean for American liberty.

In Ohio, the conversation has largely centered on data centers, their growing demand for electricity and water, and the economic opportunities they promise. The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel has highlighted legislative proposals addressing these concerns, and understandably so. Nobody wants higher utility bills, and workers have every reason to question what automation means for their future.

But I think we’re fighting the right fight with the wrong gloves.

Artificial intelligence could give the government surveillance capabilities unlike anything Americans have previously experienced. Facial recognition, automated monitoring and sophisticated data analysis make it possible to examine enormous amounts of personal information with increasing speed. The Government Accountability Office has already raised concerns about privacy protections surrounding federal law enforcement’s use of surveillance technologies.

And that should make us uncomfortable.

From the Patriot Act to the revelations surrounding the National Security Agency, Americans have seen how quickly national security arguments can expand government authority. AI threatens to make that relationship even more complicated, particularly as technologies once limited by cost and manpower become increasingly accessible.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for governments to use AI. Law enforcement could investigate crimes more efficiently, identify threats and potentially prevent harm. But giving the government better technology should not automatically mean giving it more authority.

There is also the growing relationship between government agencies and major technology corporations. Americans elect their representatives, not the executives developing the systems those representatives may eventually depend upon. When private technology becomes an instrument of public authority, accountability should become more important, not less.

The implications for political expression are especially concerning. Freedom of speech means little if citizens become reluctant to criticize their government because they believe their activities are being monitored. Surveillance does not have to result in censorship to discourage dissent.

That brings us to the incoming Congress.

Lawmakers have already introduced proposals such as the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026, seeking to establish restrictions on federal biometric surveillance. Whether similar legislation receives serious consideration in the next Congress remains to be seen.

But that is precisely what Americans should be watching.

The new Congress should face questions about how federal agencies use AI, what information they can collect, and whether existing privacy protections are sufficient. Hearings about data centers and corporate practices may be necessary, but they should not overshadow the constitutional implications of expanding government surveillance.

This should not be a partisan concern. An expansion of surveillance authority does not become harmless simply because a different political party controls the government. Lawmakers who campaign on individual liberty should be just as willing to defend it when technological developments make government intrusion easier.

Some will argue that these concerns are premature, especially when AI’s economic consequences are already being felt. That’s fair. But waiting until surveillance capabilities become deeply embedded in government institutions before establishing meaningful safeguards seems like a poor approach to protecting constitutional rights.

Artificial intelligence isn’t going anywhere, and pretending otherwise would be pointless. Its benefits are real, but so are the risks of expanding government capabilities without adequate oversight.

Ohioans should continue questioning the costs of data centers. Workers should continue demanding answers about automation. But as a new Congress prepares to take office, Americans should also be scrutinizing what lawmakers intend to do about the relationship between artificial intelligence and government power.

We’ve spent plenty of time worrying about what AI might do to our livelihoods.

Perhaps it’s time we paid more attention to what it could do to our liberties.