There was no group to stand with her in solidarity. No teammate to lean on.

We've seen other girls cross country runners in Washington state walk off the start line in protest of having to compete against a boy, but Elise Bierer was the first to do it all by herself.

It happened Wednesday during the Greater St. Helens League District Meet, where a runner for Camas High was competing as a girl after starting the year racing against the boys. And when the gun went off for the women's varsity race, Bierer walked off the line toward her mother, Sheona, who embraced her tearful daughter.

DAD BANNED FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS AFTER PROTESTING TRANS RUNNER COMPETING AGAINST HIS DAUGHTER

This was certainly not how Elise, a sophomore at Battle Ground High, pictured her season ending when the school year began. She was the second-fastest female cross country runner on her team, and almost certainly would have advanced to regionals had she participated Wednesday.

But as her mom explained, Bierer had been anticipating a moment like this for a couple of years, and was prepared to stand — or more precisely, walk — on principle.

"Before she entered high school — she's a sophomore — I told her that it's a real possibility that this could come into play, that she might be forced to race against a male. When we talked about that, she said if that were to happen, she would stand up for what was right and just not compete," said Sheona Bierer, speaking for a daughter who didn't feel comfortable being interviewed.

So two Tuesdays ago, when Battle Ground met Camas in a dual meet, Bierer and other teammates decided that they were simply not going to compete. But there really wasn't a whole lot on the line in that race. This time, though, it was districts. This time, a protest meant saying sayonara to her season.

A CROSS COUNTRY RUNNER SWITCHED TO THE GIRLS TEAM MIDSEASON, PARENTS VOICE THEIR DISAPPROVAL AT MEET

Sheona said Elise and other Battle Ground girls who didn't want to compete against the biological boy were pressured into running in the JV race Wednesday. This would maximize Battle Ground's chances of finishing in the top three of four teams to advance to regionals.

Two things, though. 1) Because of all this controversy, only five Battle Ground racers even showed up for Wednesday's women's varsity race (the other three teams had seven apiece). And 2) Elise felt it was her rightful place to line up with the varsity. She'd earned that position.

Sheona said that the initial plan was for other Battle Ground girls to walk off the start line with Elise. But those plans changed before the race, leaving Elise to make a statement all by herself.

What was that like to watch as a mom? I asked.

"I'm super proud. I'm still overwhelmed," said Sheona, adding that Elise has been running since sixth grade but would not return to the team next year if she had to run against the Camas boy. "I know this is really hard, but I love her, and I'm so glad that she's going to stand up for what's right, even when everybody else is walking away from what's right and chose to buckle under pressure."

Sheona said Elise didn't inform Battle Ground coach Patricia Tester of her plan for fear of being relegated to JV. I attempted to ask Tester about Bierer after the race — and about the exodus of female runners from her team — but she wouldn't even offer a no comment.

Then, another Battle Ground coach stepped in.

"Go away, please. That's my comment," he said.

I told him I was just trying to get answers about an athlete who protested.

"Leave the kids alone," he said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

I can't speak for other writers — and there were quite a few of them out there Wednesday — but I'd love to leave the kids alone. Unfortunately, Washington state law allows high school males to compete against high school females if they identify as the latter — leaving myriad girls distressed.

The Camas boy finished second out of 26 runners Wednesday, officially displacing a biological girl from competing in regionals — as only 21 can advance. He also helped lead his Papermakers to first place in the women's varsity team results. Earlier this season, he finished first in a varsity dual meet despite placing 76th among boys a couple weeks prior.

People are tired of this — and not just those on opposing teams. Eight days ago, about a dozen of the runner's own female teammates walked off the starting line for Camas.

One of them was Holly Burns, who spoke at a pre-meet rally attended by scores of supporters of Initiative 638, a Nov. 3 ballot measure in Washington state that would require K-12 athletes to compete according to their sex at birth. She had no idea her walking off the start line would spark the reaction it has — but it helped turn Wednesday's meet into the kind of media spectacle rarely seen in high school cross country.

"When I was talking about it with the girls, we were kind of like 'what's the point of even doing this?' It's not like it was going to change anything," said Burns, who, according to one parent, is one of 18 girls from Camas to have quit the team entirely. "But it seems like it definitely made a wave."

This won't be the only OutKick column from Wednesday's meet. There is much more to be written about the adults who are finally showing the courage that's been almost exclusive to the high schoolers so far.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But this one is dedicated to Elise Bierer, who showed what real integrity looks like. Her coach wants us to leave her alone. No. Not when she had the guts to stand alone.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Monday that it will investigate living conditions inside the Washington, D.C. Jail following years of reports of filth, medical neglect, and brutality. 

The D.C. Jail, which holds all pretrial detainees and misdemeanor offenders in the District of Columbia, was the subject of an unflattering 2016 Reason cover story, "How Not to Build a Jail," describing how wretched conditions had persisted there for more than a century. Lawsuits, audits, and media investigations have all documented persistent civil rights problems. The jail gained additional infamy for holding pretrial detainees and convicted defendants who were prosecuted for their role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol Building. 

The Justice Department received numerous allegations of excessive force, inadequate medical care, unsanitary living conditions, and malnutrition inside the jail, according to a department press release. The investigation will determine if D.C.'s Department of Corrections has a pattern or practice of violating prisoners' constitutional rights.

"The Constitution protects the rights of every incarcerated American, including those held in custody in our nation's capital," Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a DOJ press release. "We are committed to upholding our federal civil rights laws so that no inmate is confined in unconstitutional conditions or subject to unconstitutional mistreatment at the District of Columbia Department of Corrections."

Last week, six current and former D.C. Jail inmates filed a class-action lawsuit alleging they found dead mice and cockroaches in their food.

Five different D.C. Jail inmates filed another lawsuit in September alleging guards failed to stop or adequately respond to a man in the jail's mental health unit from starting an electrical fire.

In 2021, the U.S. Marshals Service transferred roughly 400 inmates out of the D.C. Jail after a surprise inspection reported unacceptable living conditions, including guards withholding water and food from inmates as punishment.

A week before that inspection, a federal judge held the D.C. Department of Corrections in contempt for repeatedly failing to turn over the medical records of a January 6 defendant who had been waiting for months for a scheduled wrist surgery. 

The antiquated jail, opened in the 1970s, has numerous structural problems, but plans to replace it have stalled. In the meantime, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division will write a report to add to the top of the pile.

The post Justice Department Will Investigate Conditions at D.C. Jail After Years of Reports of Filth and Neglect appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• Anthropic is looking to shape AI regulation by pitching an AI safety bill of its own.
• POLITICO obtained a confidential draft of the proposed legislation.
• The bill would let the government block an AI model only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people.

Representatives for the artificial intelligence giant Anthropic have quietly pitched Capitol Hill lawmakers on a draft bill to regulate frontier AI safety and security, according to three people with knowledge of the efforts who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The confidential draft, obtained by POLITICO and not previously reported, marks a notable effort by the frontier AI lab to shape the rules governing its own technology as Congress weighs how to respond to the fast-moving industry.

"This bill represents the proposals outlined in Anthropic's Advanced AI Framework, which we have been advocating for with federal and state lawmakers since June," an Anthropic spokesperson said. "These are sensible policies we believe Congress should act on."

The bill would let the government block a model's release or use only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The risk must stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer's controls or a cyberattack. The language mirrors that found in California's AI laws including SB 53, which was signed into law last year.

Leading AI labs disclosed a series of incidents this summer, in which AI agents hacked or probed websites and platforms. None reported so far appear to have caused widespread deaths or over $1 billion in damages.

Anthropic has yet to publicly back particular legislative efforts in Congress, but they have backed some state AI safety laws, including two in California. Their head of U.S. state and local government relations previously told POLITICO that they hope states will continue to pass ever-stronger AI safety laws that raise the standard nationwide.

Under the bill, independent evaluators, which would register with the Commerce Department, would be tasked with periodically evaluating the lab and its frontier models. The evaluators may be paid for their work by the lab itself so long as the payment is not contingent on the evaluations' results.

If the evaluators determine there is "imminent enumerated risk" for a company's frontier models, they must report it to Commerce within 72 hours of completing their assessment.

While the Commerce Department could bring a request to the judge to halt the release of a model after determining that it poses a risk, the language explicitly prohibits any other U.S. "department, agency, or officer" from suspending the model's development, deployment or internal use. A federal judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia could order the suspension of a model.

Over the summer, Anthropic was subject to sweeping export controls that shut down two of its most advanced models. The decision was made in a whirlwind series of phone calls between administration officials and the company's executives, worrying some in the tech industry that access to their technology may be restricted on the whims of government officials.

Anthropic's bill would also preempt some state AI laws related to public disclosure of risk, third-party evaluation and reporting of critical incidents. Preemption has been a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill, with Democrats rejecting some proposals they feared would neuter regulations passed by the likes of California, Illinois and New York.

Many tech industry groups have argued that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is difficult to comply with compared to a unified national standard.

The legislation would also require frontier labs to create safety frameworks, publish transparency reports for new frontier models, implement protections for whistleblowers and report critical safety incidents to Commerce.

Capitol Hill has seen a flurry of activity on AI safety legislation this summer. In the House, Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) spearheaded the FRONTIER Act, which would give the government the ability to stop the deployment of risky models and preempt some state AI laws.

In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been negotiating an AI safety bill intended to mitigate catastrophic risks. But it has faced headwinds from some safety-minded groups and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Cruz's Commerce Committee, who want the government to have a larger role in reviewing AI models.

Other progressives, including Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have gone well beyond their colleagues in calling for a pause in advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence, a type of theoretical AI that far surpasses humans' cognitive capabilities.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

Upon reaching the summit, Glover lifted his spyglass to his eye to scan the horizon. What he saw exceeded his worst nightmares: over 150 British warships heading up the Long Island Sound and hundreds of Redcoats already flooding from their ships onto a small peninsula. 

The post Exclusive–O’Donnell: The Forgotten Battle that Saved Washington’s Army appeared first on Breitbart.

Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. councilmember and the city's presumptive next mayor, has come out against pending legislation that would allow autonomous ride-share vehicles onto city streets, citing the technology's potential to eliminate the jobs of ride-share human drivers. 

"DC is facing a jobs crisis. Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk," she said on X yesterday.  

DC is facing a jobs crisis.

Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk.

— Janeese Lewis George (@Janeese4DC) October 15, 2026

In a follow-up post, she said that the D.C. Council should delay consideration of a pending bill that would allow Waymo, which is currently testing its technology with human safety operators on District streets, to offer autonomous rides to the public.  

Ever since Lewis George won a commanding victory in D.C.'s Democratic mayoral primary earlier this year, pundits and wonks have been trying to read the tea leaves on how the Democratic Socialist will govern. 

D.C.'s economy is currently in a rough spot. Unemployment is high. The housing market is down. Population growth is slowing.  

Lewis George's comments about Waymo suggest the mayor has a deeply mistaken view about the effects and benefits of technological innovation. Contrary to her contention, Waymo legalization is unlikely to exacerbate a "jobs crisis" for at least three reasons. 

The first reason she's wrong is that very few D.C. residents work full-time as ride-share drivers. On her Capital Commonsense Substack, Ashley Schapitl reports that, by Lewis George's own estimate, there are only 200 District residents who work full-time as ride-share drivers.

For comparison's sake, the District has a labor force of roughly 400,000 people. So even if Waymo displaced all human drivers in the District, it would be a statistical nonevent. 

Few headlines, for instance, reported that D.C.'s labor force shrank by 1,000 people between May and June. Neither did many outlets report that the labor force grew by roughly 600 people between July and August. 

Yet here the mayor is talking about a "jobs crisis" over what would be an even smaller change in the number of employed workers in the city. 

The second reason not to fear an exacerbated "jobs crisis" as a result of Waymo legalization is that autonomous vehicles (A.V.s) will not completely replace human rideshare drivers in the foreseeable future. 

In the cities where Waymo has been active for years, A.V.s are still responsible for a minority of rideshare rides. 

That's the case in Phoenix, where Waymo has been offering autonomous commercial service since 2020. In an article from April, Business Insider cites one study that put Waymo's market share at 16 percent of ride-share rides. 

In other words, 84 percent of ride-share rides are still being performed by humans a full six years after A.V.s came onto the scene. 

That isn't to say the impacts of A.V.s are necessarily positive for human drivers' earnings.

Another study by Gridwise from August 2025 found that A.V.s appeared to be marginally reducing drivers' hourly pay and number of trips per hour. That's evidence of the market for rides becoming more competitive, but it's not, as of yet, evidence of a job apocalypse. 

Network design matters too. In places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Waymo is a standalone competitor to traditional ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft. In Austin and Phoenix, Waymo partners with Uber to offer rides on hybrid human-and-A.V. networks. 

A report by EnoTrans, funded by a grant from Lyft, found that the later cities' hybrid networks actually increased human drivers' trips per hour. Their pay-per-hour fell, albeit less steeply than in cities without hybrid networks. 

All of that is to say that while Waymo, as a competitor to human-operated ride-share services, shouldn't be expected to have a positive impact on drivers' earnings. It shouldn't be expected to have a catastrophic impact on them either. 

The third and final reason that Lewis George is wrong to think that Waymo will worsen a coming "jobs crisis" is that Waymo's employment impacts are not limited to its effect on competing human drivers. 

If Waymo earns any market share at all, it'll be because it's offering some travelers a better transportation option than the ones that currently exist. Increased ease of travel within the city would be expected to raise employment levels, not lower them. 

If Waymo makes it easier or cheaper for people to get from home to the office or from the office to their kids' school, they might be more willing to live in D.C. over Arlington or Silver Spring. If it's more convenient to get to the movies or dinner, residents will be more willing to patronize local businesses. 

None of that even touches on the economic and human benefits of Waymo's likely positive impact on road safety. 

The direct effects of Waymo on drivers' employment must be weighed against all the other economic activity that autonomous vehicles will facilitate. 

In the long run, the economic effects of autonomous vehicles may well be revolutionary. In the foreseeable future, they'll make the market for for-hire rides slightly more competitive. 

A reasonable assumption then is that Waymo will have a modest, but positive, impact on overall economic activity and employment in the District, even if it has a modest, but negative, impact on the small number of full-time ride-share drivers who live here. 

If the new mayor can't even tolerate that level of economic disruption, that does not portend good things for D.C.'s economy under a Lewis George administration. 

The post Presumptive D.C. Mayor Janeese Lewis George Demands Halt to Waymo Legalization To Protect Drivers' Jobs appeared first on Reason Magazine.