Why are New Hanover Republicans Fast-Tracking A.I. Surveillance on Schoolchildren with France’s Top Military Intelligence Contractor?

March 25, 2025 UPDATE

In a 4–3 vote, the New Hanover County School Board decided not to move forward with the $3.2 million grant for the Eviden AI surveillance system. Board members Judy Justice (D), Melissa Mason (R), Tim Merrick (D), and David Perry (R) voted in oppostion of moving forward with the deal. Josie Barnhart (R), Pat Bradford (R), and Pete Wildeboer (R) voted in support of the grant and the Eviden system.

With No Experience in U.S. K-12, Why Would Some School Board Members Place Their Trust in a Foreign Military Intelligence Contractor?

After a town hall meeting last week, New Hanover County Schools (NHCS) faces skepticism and concern regarding its proposed $3.2 million no-bid contract with Eviden to undertake an AI surveillance system in local schools.

Billed as part of a state-funded school safety pilot program, the proposed technology promises features like object detection, license plate reading, and facial recognition (though officials claim this feature would remain deactivated). But residents aren't sold on the “just trust us” claim. This town hall revealed an avalanche of red flags: such as financial instability, foreign entanglements, ethical questions, zero K-12 customers, and a troubling lack of transparency.

Mother to Superintendent Barnes: "It's Sounding real Prison-like right about now"

One mother showed her deep concern when Eviden’s presentation featured past applications of its AI surveillance technology, including deployments in prisons and police stations. She stated,

“It’s sounding real prison-like right about now, and it’s not feeling child-friendly. These are children. These are not terrorists.”

Others worried about how the surveillance system might be repurposed. One parent asked whether it might be used as a student monitoring system, for instance, to track and catch kids skipping class. NHCS Superintendent Barnes stated he hadn’t thought about using the system as such — which raises concern, since he’s responsible for ensuring technology is used ethically and responsibly.

Financial Instability of Atos/Eviden: A Mounting Concern for NHC Taxpayers

At the center of the controversy surrounding New Hanover County Schools’ proposed $3.2 million no-bid AI surveillance contract is the financial instability of Eviden’s parent company, Atos SE. Though Eviden representatives at the March 18 town hall tried to downplay the issue, the company’s intertwined relationship with Atos is inescapable — and potentially problematic.

During the meeting, when questioned about the financial health of Eviden’s parent company, representative Sean Grimm described Eviden as the “financially stable component” of Atos. He claimed the company was being spun off as a “wholly owned subsidiary” with its own profit and loss structure. But the explanation was filled with word salad — and did little to reassure anyone.

Grimm claimed, “We are the financially stable component of Atos because of all the Big Data Solutions that are out there in the world that we do. So, we’re actually going to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Atos — wholly owned, meaning we have our own P&L, and we run on our own profit and loss. So, we are very profitable. So that was actually good for us to spin out of them. If that make sense?”

To many in the audience, it didn’t.

In fact, the financial press paints a far more troubling picture. Atos SE, the parent of Eviden, is in a severe financial crisis. The company is preparing for a drastic 10,000-to-1 reverse stock split to avoid delisting from the Euronext Paris stock exchange. This kind of move — meant to artificially boost its share price — is viewed by experts as a last-ditch effort to save a company. Atos stock has plummeted to mere fractions of a cent, trading at just over $0.0038 per share, prior to the planned restructuring. Notably, Atos and Eviden remain so financially intertwined that financial news outlets refer to the company as “Atos/Eviden.”

Reverse stock splits are widely seen as red flags in the financial world. While they can temporarily boost a company’s share price, they rarely fix underlying problems. In Atos’ case, those problems run deep — years of mismanagement, risky acquisitions, and growing debt have left the company in serious trouble. Even the French government has publicly acknowledged the company is in a state of financial triage.

As a business unit of Atos, Eviden does not operate independently on the stock market, nor has it published a standalone financial statement. During the town hall, the company’s representatives offered no documentation to validate their claims of profitability or long-term stability. Instead, the school board and public must take them at their word.

This lack of transparency has raised alarm. Can New Hanover County Schools — and by extension, local taxpayers — risk signing a multi-million dollar contract with a vendor whose parent company is on the brink of financial collapse?

Eviden merely looks like a healthy branch on a diseased tree.

French Military Ties and National Security Questions

The financial instability of Atos is just one piece of a more complex concern. Atos/Eviden are not merely international tech vendors, they are deeply embedded in the defense and intelligence infrastructure of the French government.

It’s become clear that Atos/Eviden is more akin to a national defense contractor than a general IT services company. Comparable to U.S. defense giants like Raytheon (RTX) or Leidos, Atos/Eviden is involved in a wide range of military and intelligence initiatives for France. Its contributions include cybersecurity for government agencies, secure cloud systems, satellite communications, and high-performance computing (HPC).

According to a March 2024 New York Times report, France’s Minister of Finance, Bruno Le Maire, publicly committed “to guarantee the protection of strategic activities” tied to Atos/Eviden. The company was described as a national asset whose survival is essential to French technological sovereignty. Among its more sensitive projects: Atos (through Eviden) provides control systems for French nuclear reactors, secure telephone lines for the military, and software for the Rafale fighter jet program​.

This level of involvement with the French state — particularly in intelligence and defense — raises significant questions about national security implications of placing foreign surveillance infrastructure in American public schools.

Why is a notable French intelligence contractor trying to roll out AI surveillance in New Hanover schools — a district with so many children of U.S. military and Homeland Security families?

What safeguards are in place to ensure that data collected through this surveillance cannot be accessed, shared, or exploited by foreign actors?

These questions were absent from the town hall. Eviden representatives made no mention of Atos’s role in France’s defense programs.

France is desperate to keep Atos/Eviden Viable

In recent months, France has discussed the idea of nationalizing Atos SE units to prevent foreign acquisition — and maintaining control over their military-sensitive technologies.

Atos/Eviden as a floundering public company and as a strategic military arm of the French government adds layers of risk to the New Hanover County proposal. It’s not just a question of whether the technology works, but of who controls it, and what their long-term intentions may be.

Why hasn’t proper due diligence been performed on this company?

Family Ties, Lobbying Loopholes, and Foreign Influence: The Controversy Around Mia Budd’s Role in the Eviden Deal

The proposed AI surveillance system from Eviden is funded through a 2023 North Carolina State House appropriations bill, with key project specifications later added quietly into the Hurricane Helene recovery legislation. As public scrutiny grows over the funding origins of this no-bid deal, one name keeps coming up at the center of the controversy: Mia Budd.

Budd holds a Senior Director role at Eviden, but as we mentioned in a prior article, her personal connections and professional involvement raise important questions about transparency and potential undue influence in this AI pilot grant.

Mia Budd is the niece (by marriage) of U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-NC). While the relationship isn’t necessarily controversial, it wasn’t disclosed to the school district at Eviden's January presentation.

But it’s not just her connection to a U.S. senator that’s drawing attention. It’s the nature of Mia Budd’s job — and whether her role as a legislative liaison and strategic partnership lead for a foreign defense contractor crosses ethical or legal lines.

A Legislative Liaison Without Lobbying Registration?

At the town hall meeting, Eviden representatives confirmed Budd works closely with local and state legislators, and school districts for the company’s state, local and education (SLED) business lines. Her own LinkedIn profile notes her leadership in public policy, public relations, and “legislative relations.”

Budd’s role appears to mirror the typical duties of a lobbyist—building relationships with lawmakers, helping shape policy, and influencing decisions in the public sector. Yet, a search of the January 2025 North Carolina Lobbying Directory, which is updated every 20 days, showed no record of Mia Budd or her employer, Eviden, as registered lobbyists at that time. It’s worth noting, however, that Kevin Wilkinson was registered as a lobbyist for Eviden in 2024.

The most recent directory, dated March 10, 2025, now lists a handful of registered lobbyists representing Eviden. Mia Budd is not among them.

It’s still unclear whether Budd had a direct hand in influencing the legislation that funded the AI surveillance pilot program. But her lack of disclosure—coupled with the company’s silence—raises important questions that have yet to be addressed.

Editor’s Note: When this article was originally published, no lobbyists for Eviden appeared in the January 2025 North Carolina lobbying directory. Since then, we’ve confirmed that Kevin Wilkinson was registered in 2024, and his name, along with three others, appears in the March 2025 update. It seems Eviden has doubled their number of lobbyists from 2024 to 2025 (from a headcount of two to a headcount of four). We’ve updated this section to reflect that new information. 

Still, the lack of full transparency from Eviden—particularly in public meetings—and the absence of deeper questioning from NHCS board members continue to raise serious concerns about oversight and accountability.

Why hasn’t the topic of transparency been addressed? And why hasn’t the school board demanded answers?

Does FARA Apply?

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires individuals who act in a political or quasi-political capacity on behalf of a foreign entity — especially when it involves lobbying U.S. government officials or shaping public opinion — to register with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Atos/Eviden is a foreign-owned company with deep ties to the French military and intelligence establishment. As one of France’s largest defense contractors, it plays a central role in national security operations—ranging from nuclear test simulations to military communications systems. These connections have drawn international attention, particularly as the French government moves to acquire key parts of the organization to protect its strategic interests. Given the nature of Eviden’s work and its status as a foreign defense entity, any political or legislative activity on its behalf in the United States — whether by a corporate representative or a registered lobbyist — is likely to fall under the FARA.

Editor’s Note: Following the publication of this article, it was confirmed that Eviden does have registered lobbyists in North Carolina. However, Mia Budd is not listed among them. Further, a search of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) database revealed no registrations for Budd or anyone else acting on behalf of Atos/Eviden. Given the company’s status as a foreign defense contractor headquartered in France, an absence of an agent raises questions about whether FARA registration should be required. 

The No-Bid Vendor — and the Only One Seriously Considered

Equally troubling is that Eviden appears to be the only vendor seriously considered for the AI surveillance contract. Board members and staff have acknowledged that the decision to use Eviden was largely made for them by a provision in the Hurricane Helene legislation, which required New Hanover and Davidson counties to use the same vendor.

This convenient lock, combined with the absence of competitive bidding and a politically connected figure advocating for the vendor, creates a clear appearance of impropriety, even if no laws were technically violated.

Who at the State Level Steered Davidson Schools Toward Eviden?

When representatives of Davidson’s school district spoke before their county commission, the superintendent, Greggory Slate, stated that legislation was revised during the process and those at state-level recommended the school district goes with Eviden, specifically.

Who at the state level pushed Eviden as the vendor of choice? 

During the New Hanover town hall, board member Tim Merrick questioned Mia Budd’s family connection to U.S. Senator Ted Budd and urged more transparency. Eviden representatives, however, gave no clear explanation of her legislative involvement.

When a foreign defense contractor is pushing a no-bid contract to monitor U.S. students, the conversation needs to shift from funding to "first principles" concerns — such as ethics, accountability, and national interest.

Big Costs, No Answers: What Happens After the AI Grant Runs Out?

One of the most pressing concerns raised at the town hall is what happens after the two-year pilot ends.

The AI surveillance system proposed by Eviden comes with significant ongoing costs that extend far beyond the initial $3.2 million state-funded grant. According to statements made during the meeting, licensing and managed services alone could exceed $300,000 per year, plus the costs associated with hardware maintenance, updates, or technical support.

No school board member could clearly say who would be responsible for covering these costs after the grant expires. Would the district take on the burden through local funds? Would additional grants be pursued?

The Grant May Not Even Cover the Initial Installation

Adding to the uncertainty, it remains unclear whether the grant from the State of the North Carolina will cover initial set up costs. No site surveys have been conducted at individual schools to determine whether existing security cameras meet Eviden’s technical requirements — or whether school server rooms have the space, power, cabling, or cooling capacity to accommodate the new equipment. These unknowns raise the possibility of additional, unbudgeted expenses, further clouding the long-term financial picture of the proposed system.

During the town hall, Eviden representative Sean Hall acknowledged that projects like this often come with unforeseen costs — typically around 1% of the total. For NHCS, that could mean an unexpected bill of more than $32,000.

Why do Some Republican School Board Members Seem to Ignore Ethical Questions?

Should a Foreign Military Firm be Contracted to Surveil American Schoolchildren?

The town hall laid bare a philosophical divide among board members:

David Perry (R), a veteran software engineer, remains staunchly opposed, warning that this system lays the architectural foundation for a future public surveillance akin to China’s social credit model.

Judy Justice (D) and Tim Merrick (D) echoed concerns about privacy, consent, and the ethics of surveilling children.

Pat Bradford (R) expressed no ethical concerns whatsoever about using AI surveillance on public school children, but made it clear she didn’t want the district spending “one nickel more” than the amount covered by the state grant.

Pete Wildeboer (R) made it clear, his main concern was what school administrators wanted, not the views of parents or taxpayers. No parent survey was ever conducted, however, he met with school adminsitrators to get their feedback.

Melissa Mason (R) made few comments and avoided expressing a stance on anything.

Josie Barnhart (R) did not attend the town hall — part of a pattern of avoiding controversial topics.

Who's Schools are They Anyway? Taxpayers Deserve Due Diligence

As the town hall concluded, one thing was clear: the community is still waiting for answers. Why is the school board considering a $3.2 million surveillance system that no one in the district has actually seen in action?

Why was the vendor — a subsidiary of a French defense contractor — pushed forward with so little scrutiny?

Parents also questioned why they were never asked for input. Despite the system affecting thousands of students, including collecting data they cannot legally opt out of, no formal parental survey was ever conducted. Instead, school officials surveyed principals — raising concerns about whose voices the board values in decisions that impact children and families.

With so many unanswered questions and red flags — from vendor ties to foreign intelligence, to cost overruns and ethical gray areas — the public isn’t just demanding transparency. They’re asking for accountability. And whether the board will listen remains to be seen.