Michelle Singletary’s Feb. 25 The Color of Money column, “Scammers using AI deepfakes to steal money from taxpayers,” raised legitimate concerns. These stories are important to educate consumers about real threats, but they should also inspire policymakers to act.
Artificial-intelligence-driven fraud has exacerbated the financial losses of unwitting victims. The Federal Trade Commission estimated $196 billion in fraud losses in 2024. This issue will keep getting worse — and lost dollars will continue to grow — if our country’s leaders fail to implement smart policies to prevent scams.
To protect consumers, we must develop a national strategy on fraud and scams that focuses on partnership between the public and private sectors. Policymakers can act by improving fraud reporting practices for law enforcement at all levels of government and consumers, establishing scam prevention as a national priority, and enhancing incentives and legal frameworks to empower an extensive private sector response.
A robust, integrated plan to make scams harder, less profitable and higher-risk to execute must be implemented.
Kate Griffin, Washington
The writer is director of inclusive financial systems at the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program.
Don’t let NIMBYism stall progress
I agree with the Feb. 28 editorial “The fundamental problem with data center alarmism.” Calls for moratoriums on new data centers reflect politicians pandering to NIMBY activists, not serious public policy.
Artificial intelligence is already embedded in health care, finance, logistics and national defense. The infrastructure that powers it is not optional. If data centers increase electricity demand, the rational response is to expand reliable generation and modernize the grid — not to halt construction. America has always met rising energy needs by building capacity, whether for industrialization, electrification or the internet.
This debate also has a strategic dimension. The United States is in a technological competition with China, which will not pause its AI ambitions because American officials are uneasy. Moratoriums won’t slow the technology. They will simply shift investment, jobs and leadership elsewhere.
Reasonable environmental standards and fair cost-sharing make sense. Blanket hostility to data centers does not.
Stephen M. Flatow, Long Branch, New Jersey
Keep the ‘N’ in SNAP
I am in agreement with Paige Terryberry’s statement in her March 1 op-ed, “A bipartisan win against the No. 1 food stamp purchase”: “Putting restrictions on how food stamp dollars can be spent is hardly an imposition on individual freedom, rather, it is an exercise in good stewardship of taxpayer funds.”
I am not a fan of President Donald Trump, but if his administration can bring changes like this to fruition, my mind might be changed. I believe allocating taxpayer money to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a good thing as long as we massively emphasize the second letter in the SNAP acronym, which represents nutrition.
Tracy Smith Jr., Baltimore
Stop policing the poor
I grew up on food stamps. Luckily, I have worked my entire adult life and have never needed them since, but I still remember the stigma. Paige Terryberry’s March 1 op-ed applauded new rules that will prevent people on food stamps from buying pop (or soda, depending on part of the country). States “want to help lower-income people make healthier choices that lead to longer, happier lives.” Rather condescending, don’t you think? Why are lower-income people singled out for this “help”? Why should they be told how to live their lives, what to eat or drink? I agree that pop is not the healthiest of foods, and it’s better not to drink it — but that’s regardless of income level. Yes, taxes are paying for food stamps — but that’s a benefit available to all of us, should we ever need it.
Besides people who are unemployed for whatever reason, many people on food stamps are working low-wage jobs. Indeed, some employers encourage new hires to apply for food stamps. Should someone working 40 or more hours a week be denied a can of soda at the end of the day, while their higher-income counterpart is deemed worthy to enjoy pop or an also-unhealthy latte?
Diane O’Neill, Chicago
Access matters
My friend and I recently tried to demonstrate at the White House with a pair of signs protesting President Donald Trump’s deplorable actions. But not only was Pennsylvania Avenue closed in front of the White House, but also across the street, all of Lafayette Park was walled off by chain-link fence. We could not get anywhere near the White House.
The Post noted the closure of the park in the Jan. 23 news article “Lafayette Square in D.C. is fenced off as Trump embarks on new project,” but that coverage was overshadowed by the destruction of the East Wing and by other White House construction plans.
Lafayette Park has long been a stage for demonstrations for and against presidents. In June 2020, federal law enforcement officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear the park of protesters ahead of an appearance by Trump. Fencing off the park has made it effectively impossible to demonstrate in front of the president’s historic office and home.
Robert E. Taylor, Hanover, New Hampshire
The post Scammers are getting smarter. We must, too. appeared first on Washington Post.
