21 C
London
Monday, June 22, 2026
Home Blog

Connecticut: Have You Called 911 for Help? Tell Us About Your Experience.

0
connecticut:-have-you-called-911-for-help?-tell-us-about-your-experience.
Connecticut: Have You Called 911 for Help? Tell Us About Your Experience.

Have you called 911 for a medical emergency in Connecticut? ProPublica and The Connecticut Mirror, two nonprofit newsrooms, are examining emergency medical services in the state and want to hear from those who have had firsthand experiences seeking care. 

We would like to learn more about your story and if you faced a long wait for emergency care to arrive. 

We know people in some towns have had to wait up to 20 minutes for an ambulance, but the numbers don’t show what happens as time drags. And they can’t explain the impact on your life in the weeks and months following delayed emergency care. We’ve heard that emergency medical services are often underresourced, but in order to understand what the strained system actually looks like for communities across the state, we need to hear from you. 

If you have called 911 for a medical emergency in Connecticut for yourself or someone else, we want to hear your experience. 

You can fill out our brief form to share your experience. Our reporters read through every response and may follow up with you. You can also email CT Mirror reporter Jenna Carlesso and ProPublica reporter Cassandra Garibay at [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns. 

Don’t live in Connecticut but know someone who does? You can also help by sending this form to them. 

If you work or volunteer for emergency medical services in Connecticut, we also want to hear from you. Please fill out our EMS experience form.

Lebanon building damage in Israeli attacks estimated at $1.38B

0
lebanon-building-damage-in-israeli-attacks-estimated-at-$1.38b
Lebanon building damage in Israeli attacks estimated at $1.38B

The direct cost of damage to buildings in southern Lebanon due to the recent Israeli offensive on the country exceeded $1.38 billion, with rubble estimated at around 3.1 million cubic meters, a UN agency and a Lebanese research center said Monday.

The assessment report was released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Lebanon’s government-linked National Council for Scientific Research

It found that 11,095 buildings were completely destroyed, affecting 17,891 housing units, while 2,242 buildings were partially damaged, equivalent to 5,219 housing units.

The report also revealed that 9,311 buildings sustained minor damage, equivalent to 18,282 housing units.

The assessment covers areas south of the Litani River, including the districts of Bint Jbeil, Marjayoun, Nabatieh, Tyre, and Sidon.

READ: Israeli Cabinet minister rejects ceasefire, says Lebanon ‘should be Israel’s playground’

The evaluation was based on a geospatial artificial intelligence methodology, supported by desk-based visual verification, without field inspections, the report explained.

The comparison was conducted between high-resolution satellite images taken on April 29, 2026, and others dated Oct. 23, 2025, allowing the detection of visible conflict-related damage, including roof collapses, structural deformation, and rubble accumulation at the building level, it added.

The report noted that the assessment does not include basements or underground structures, nor damage to critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, electricity, water, and telecommunications networks.

Since March 2, Israel has been carrying out an expanded offensive on Lebanon, involving shelling and demolition of homes, particularly in the south of the country, killing 4,106 people, injuring 12,153 others, and displacing over a million people, according to Lebanese officials.

READ: Israel plans to reduce forces in southern Lebanon under US pressure ahead of Lebanese army deployment

GM installs robots at flagship EV factory after laying off 1,300 workers

0
gm-installs-robots-at-flagship-ev-factory-after-laying-off-1,300-workers
GM installs robots at flagship EV factory after laying off 1,300 workers

Dozens of new robot arms have been installed at General Motors’ flagship electric vehicle factory in Detroit—even as 1,300 workers remain out of work following what was supposed to be a temporary layoff. The latest automation push has spurred union pushback over a potentially existential issue for automakers and their workers.

General Motors installed approximately 50 robot arms at GM’s Factory Zero plant in Detroit, Michigan, according to reporting by Crain’s Detroit Business. Made by the Japanese robotics company FANUC, the robots are designed to help attach various components to vehicles during the assembly line process. But leaders at United Auto Workers (UAW), the primary US union for autoworkers, reacted with anger to the new robotic presence, given how GM has not yet called back any of the workers affected by supposedly temporary layoffs in March.

More than 1,000 union members are still “laid off indefinitely,” James Cotton, president of UAW Local 22, told The Detroit News. He said that the company could bring some of those members back to work instead of installing the 50 robots.

The temporary layoffs were preceded by permanent layoffs involving another 1,200 workers at GM’s Factory Zero in October 2025.

Many automakers, including Stellantis NV and Ford Motor Company, have deployed assembly-line robots, such as Fanuc robot arms, as they push to automate more of their US operations. Hyundai Motor Company plans to deploy Atlas humanoid robots made by Boston Dynamics—which Hyundai acquired in 2020—to start working in the automaker’s flagship EV facility in Georgia by 2028.

Andrew Bergman, a Local 22 member and union organizer who was among those laid off by GM, described corporate leaders in the automotive industry as prioritizing profits over human workers.

“Technological development has the capability of making work safer for the working class and enabling workers to have a shorter work week without losing pay,” Bergman told The Detroit News. “But in the bosses’ and billionaires’ hands it’s used to pad profits and lay off workers.”

The Detroit News also highlighted how corporate leaders and workers conveyed “strikingly different messages” about AI, robotics, and automation during separate gatherings held in Detroit during the same week of June.

While the Reindustrialize Summit featured startup founder speeches about how robots could “empower our industrial base with superhuman manufacturing,” the UAW Constitutional Convention featured UAW president Shawn Fain warning against “the threat of humanoid robotics and mass automation” undermining worker employment and wages at a time of rising wealth inequality.

Dark factory rising

Efforts to automate more US factories come as companies in East Asia have already charged ahead in establishing multiple “dark factory” sites—facilities featuring near-complete automation with a small human staff to provide oversight and troubleshooting.

The Japanese robotics company FANUC is itself one of the original dark factory pioneers that has operated a “lights out” factory since 2001. In other words, the FANUC robot arms being deployed by GM and other companies to automate automotive production were themselves primarily built by other robots.

But the latest dark factory pioneers are primarily Chinese companies, including many automakers. The Chinese automotive brand Jetour has a dark factory churning out SUVs in the city of Fuzhou in China’s Fujian province, while the luxury EV maker Zeekr has a dark factory in Ningbo City in China’s Zhejiang province capable of producing up to 300,000 cars per year, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi uses more than 700 robots at its EV Hyperfactory in Beijing to help produce a new electric vehicle every 76 seconds, according to The EV Report. Xiaomi already had another heavily automated dark factory in Beijing capable of churning out 10 million phones annually.

But as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers pointed out, leaning too heavily into fully automated factories can create new vulnerabilities and issues. Humans are often better at quickly identifying problems on the production line that can quickly spiral out of control in a fully automated system. Cybersecurity also becomes an even greater issue for heavily automated, AI-powered facilities featuring primarily robotic workforces. Still, many companies are betting that the lower labor costs and increased production capacities are worth it.

China’s manufacturing industry had deployed 2 million industrial robots by 2024, adding 295,000 robots in that year alone. By comparison, Japan installed 44,500 industrial robots, and the United States installed 34,200 such robots in 2024. Meanwhile, China’s latest five-year plan puts AI and robotics at the heart of the government’s economic blueprint for the country as it looks ahead to 2030.

Such automation efforts may give Chinese automakers a significant edge in competitiveness as global EV adoption continues to rise—although US automakers have already been retreating from EV production in the wake of the Trump administration’s decisions to abolish the federal tax credit for EV buyers and freeze a federal EV charging infrastructure program.

Keir Starmer latest casualty in Britain’s premiership carousel

0
keir-starmer-latest-casualty-in-britain’s-premiership-carousel
Keir Starmer latest casualty in Britain’s premiership carousel

Keir Starmer has resigned as leader of the Labour party, and so in time as the UK’s prime minister. In the end, despite his numerous assurances that he would fight on, after Andy Burnham’s resounding win in the Makerfield byelection, the pressure on Starmer became too great to withstand. It makes him the sixth British PM in a decade to stand down.

The immediate cause of his decision was the final collapse in support for him in the party and in cabinet, clarified in private conversations over the weekend. In setting out his plans, Starmer has avoided the avalanche of resignations that toppled Conservative PMs Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

The overall aim seems to be a more orderly transition – “with good grace” – than those under recent Conservative governments. Yet his emotional statement reflecting on his time in the highest office still highlights a leader who knows he has failed.

Starmer was not popular the day before he walked into 10 Downing Street. On the eve of the 2024 general election, his net satisfaction rating with Ipsos stood at minus 21. This was a historic low for an incoming prime minister.

While 31% of the public said they were satisfied with his performance, 52% were dissatisfied, marking the first time a leader had secured a parliamentary majority while holding a significantly negative approval rating.

Yet in the environment of British politics since the Brexit referendum, such figures hardly seemed unusual. Starmer’s predecessor Rishi Sunak entered the 2024 campaign with a net satisfaction score of minus 56, according to YouGov.

At the time, I argued that Starmer would likely see an upsurge in popularity having actually achieved a Labour victory after 14 long years. In 1997, Tony Blair enjoyed a record-breaking honeymoon with satisfaction ratings soaring to plus 60 in the months following his victory.

Even David Cameron saw his approval leap to plus 21 shortly after forming the coalition in 2010. The office of prime minister typically confers a halo of competence on its new occupant.

Starmer’s popularity did indeed improve. But only to a kind of tepid neutrality. In the immediate aftermath of the election, his net favorability rose to plus 3 in Opinium’s first post-election poll, while YouGov recorded a similarly rapid recovery to roughly break even.

Unlike the sustained euphoria of the Blair years, Starmer’s “bounce” was in absolute terms a shallow recovery that barely lifted him above the water line before the tides turned once again.

At the same time, measured by his majority, he seemed in an unassailable position. Yet the same could have (and indeed was) said of Boris Johnson. Following the 2019 election, talk was of the Conservatives securing a “decade of dominance”, arguing that the structural realignment of the “red wall” had created a near-permanent Tory majority that would keep Labour out of power until the 2030s.

In the event, Johnson was out just over three years later and the talk now is of Conservative extinction.

A dangerous pattern

Where did it go wrong for Starmer? Paradoxically, the answer may be found in the fate of his predecessor as Labour leader. Jeremy Corbyn’s record now looks similar to Starmer’s.

Between 2017 and 2019, Corbyn’s personal ratings plummeted from a competitive minus 11 during the 2017 campaign to a disastrous minus 44 by the time of his 2019 defeat. By then, the strategic ambiguity that once held his coalition together collapsed under the pressure of Brexit.

Starmer’s rise and fall took almost exactly the same period of time. And it happened for a set of reasons uncomfortably similar for either side of the Labour party’s ideological divide to admit.

In both 2017-2019 and 2022-24, Labour’s fragile polling lead was driven less by enthusiasm for the opposition and more by a collapse in government competence. As data from the 2024 “loveless landslide” illustrated, Labour secured around 64% of seats on just 34% of the vote – the lowest share for any majority government in history.

Just as Corbyn was squeezed by the populist-right Brexit party and pro-EU center party the Liberal Democrats in 2019 over its middle-of-the-road position on Brexit, Starmer faced a similar pincer movement in the mid-2020s.

On one flank, Reform UK eroded the Labour vote in post-industrial heartlands; on the other, the Green Party and pro-Gaza independents successfully targeted urban progressives. The Greens ended up quadrupling their MPs in 2024 and independent candidates secured historic wins in Labour strongholds.

Labour’s electoral results in office reflected this – byelection losses to both Reform UK and the Greens, disastrous local election results in England, and failing to dislodge a struggling and scandal-plagued Scottish National Party north of the border.

Fittingly, this latest resignation took place almost exactly ten years to the day of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Make no mistake, the divides created and solidified as a result of the Brexit moment are still at the heart of British politics – even if many people have forgotten the details of that dispute.

As Professor Tim Bale has recently argued, British politics is best seen as an example of two-bloc polarization. Voters are locked into broad identity-based camps and Brexit position is the key underlying variable. Yet this reality is obscured by the fact that these blocs are internally fragmented and only occasionally address the issue directly.

While voters may occasionally unite against a common enemy, they remain deeply divided on other aspects of policy, leaving leaders like Starmer (or Corbyn, for that matter) trying to hold together a sandcastle coalition that crumbles the moment the tide comes in.

Nicholas Dickinson is lecturer in politics, University of Exeter

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Iran Rejects Vance’s Claim It Approved Return of IAEA Inspectors 

0
iran-rejects-vance’s-claim-it-approved-return-of-iaea-inspectors 
Iran Rejects Vance’s Claim It Approved Return of IAEA Inspectors 


Iran on Monday disputed Vice President JD Vance’s assertion that Tehran had agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back into the country, with Iranian media reporting that no such approval has been granted.  

The disagreement emerged a day after Vance described negotiations between Iran and the United States in Switzerland as a “very, very good day” and said the talks had produced a “major milestone” on the nuclear issue.  

Speaking Sunday, the vice president said Iran had agreed to permit IAEA inspectors to return, calling the development “is probably what we’re most excited about as Americans.”  

However, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported Monday that neither the country’s negotiating team nor senior Iranian officials had authorized the return of IAEA inspectors.  

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said Tehran’s relationship with the UN nuclear watchdog would continue within the framework of its safeguards commitments and in accordance with decisions made by Iran’s parliament and the Supreme National Security Council.  

Iran’s position on inspections remains governed by legislation passed by parliament last summer that reduced cooperation with the IAEA and suspended inspections. At the same time, Iran has not completely severed contact with the agency, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.  

IRNA reported that the legislation permits IAEA inspectors to visit certain operational nuclear facilities on a case-by-case basis. Among the sites identified by the agency was the Bushehr nuclear power plant.  

The conflicting statements emerged as negotiators continue discussions over Iran’s nuclear program as part of more general talks in Switzerland geared toward ending the fighting in the region and opening the Strait of Hormuz.   

 

 

Two MEPs face hate speech complaints after EU deportation vote

0
two-meps-face-hate-speech-complaints-after-eu-deportation-vote
Two MEPs face hate speech complaints after EU deportation vote


European Parliament President Roberta Metsola (EPP,MT) must decide whether to sanction two MEPs accused of hate speech following last week’s vote on new EU migration rules.

Valérie Hayer (Renew,FR), leader of the Renew Europe group, wrote to Metsola on Friday alleging that Danish MEP Kristoffer Storm (ECR,DK) and Finnish MEP Sebastian Tynkkynen,(ECR,FI) both members of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, committed acts “of a racist nature” against Swedish MEP Abir Al-Sahlani, (Renew,SE) in breach of Parliament’s code of conduct.

In her letter, Hayer said she was concerned about “the sense of impunity” if such behaviour went unaddressed and urged Metsola to examine the lawmakers’ conduct during and after the vote and consider appropriate disciplinary measures.

As Parliament president, Metsola is responsible for hearing from all parties and determining whether sanctions are warranted. Possible penalties range from a formal reprimand to restrictions on parliamentary activities, including a temporary ban on representing Parliament, suspension of the daily allowance, or limits on participation in parliamentary work for up to 60 working days.

No timetable has been given for a decision. Parliament spokesperson Delphine Collard said all complaints from lawmakers are taken seriously and confirmed that Metsola had made clear the matter would be examined.

The complaints follow last week’s vote on the return regulation, a proposal intended to speed up the deportation of irregular migrants. After the vote, right-wing lawmakers chanted “send them back.” Al-Sahlani told the chamber she had “never felt as unsafe” in the European Parliament.

Tynkkynen later posted a video clip of Al-Sahlani on social media with the caption “cry more,” while Storm commented that Al-Sahlani, who was born in Iraq, “should go home.”

Al-Sahlani filed an official complaint with Metsola on Thursday, saying hate speech between MEPs was clearly contrary to Parliament’s code of conduct. Storm rejected accusations of racism, saying his comment referred to Al-Sahlani leaving the chamber if she found the outcome of the vote and the reactions to it distressing, and denied it had any connection to her ethnic background or country of birth.

Al-Sahlani rejected that explanation, saying the remark amounted to racial exclusion. She said Sweden was her home, noting that she had learned the language, worked, paid taxes, become a Swedish citizen and been elected to the European Parliament.

Tynkkynen did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

According to two people familiar with the matter, the Social Democrats, Renew, Greens and The Left also submitted a complaint to Metsola over what they described as racist comments following the chants in the chamber. The sources said Metsola indicated she would look into the issue.

Source: Politico

Polymarket’s viral videos showed people winning big, but the bets were fake

0
polymarket’s-viral-videos-showed-people-winning-big,-but-the-bets-were-fake
Polymarket’s viral videos showed people winning big, but the bets were fake

Polymarket paid dozens of social media users to film themselves making fake bets for a promotion that aimed to convince people they can strike it rich on the prediction market, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation published on Saturday.

“In its push to draw users to its unregulated platform, Polymarket has flooded social media with videos like [George] Makihara’s, which appear genuine at first glance,” the article said. “In reality, Polymarket built near-perfect copies of its website, then instructed creators to make simulated trades on those dummy sites and hide that they were being paid by Polymarket.”

Makihara, a college student, posted a video in January “that showed him winning $100,000 on a wager that President Trump would publicly say the word ‘McDonald’s’ that month.” But trade data showed that no one on Polymarket won such a bet in January, according to the Journal. This was one of 145 bets that Makihara appeared to place on Polymarket between January and May, but all of those bets were fake, the article said.

“Many of the videos share a template: The creators open Polymarket, place a bet, and frequently refer to their winnings as ‘free money.’ Dozens of social-media creators have posted videos with almost identical formats,” the Journal reported. “Polymarket sends creators bullet-point guidance on what to say, according to creators who have worked with the company and a recruiting website.”

Polymarket’s main platform barred in US

The promotion reportedly targeted US residents by paying creators only when at least 60 percent of their viewers were in the United States. Polymarket’s main platform technically hasn’t been available in the US since 2022, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) determined Polymarket was operating an illegally unregistered exchange. Polymarket’s main website is restricted to view-only mode in the United States, but users can get around the block by using a virtual private network to change their apparent location.

Polymarket is seeking the CFTC’s permission to bring its main exchange back to the US, but also offers a more limited, US-regulated version of its trading service through a mobile app. Polymarket launched the app last year after acquiring QCX, a firm that is licensed by the CFTC and now operates under the name Polymarket US.

The Journal said it reviewed 1,105 videos made by 10 creators and identified fake bets totaling $1.9 million. While most of the videos were of fake bets being placed, there were 118 videos of “creators reacting to outdated footage or fake headlines suggesting they’d won.”

Those 118 videos showed creators winning almost $900,000, but the bets in reality would have lost over $166,000, the report said. The Polymarket “campaign racked up more than 140 million views on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram,” the report said, citing data from analytics provider Tubular.

Polymarket “hired and worked closely with” a marketing firm that enlisted a “social-media army to repost content made by 10 Polymarket creators in particular, Makihara among them,” the article said. The Journal said it reviewed “nearly 20,000 messages from a chat group for Polymarket’s online content-creating contractors, and instructional documents and videos prepared for them.”

Videos used fake “poiymarket” site

Video creators were reportedly told to make their posts seem “personal and organic,” to ensure that the word “Polymarket” did not appear in their account names, and to not disclose that they were paid. Creators were reportedly paid $2,000 to $3,000 a month.

“These creators didn’t initially identify themselves as paid by Polymarket, although one offered a $20 bonus code in his social-media bio. The creators started adding ‘@polymarket partner’ to their bios after the Journal started asking the company about its marketing operation,” the article said.

The Journal said it identified various discrepancies between the real Polymarket site and the fake ones used by creators. “One password-protected website has the creatively misspelled URL poiymarket.com, which is indistinguishable from polymarket.com when the ‘i’ is capitalized,” the report said.

The Journal report said a person familiar with the matter confirmed that Polymarket itself built poiymarket.com. “The ‘poiymarket’ website was taken down after the Journal reached out to Polymarket for comment,” the article said.

Creators told the Journal that they sent videos to Polymarket for review and that Polymarket asked for videos to be reshot if they were too obviously fake. Despite that precaution, some videos “contained short glimpses of URLs indicating the sites were test environments for Polymarket engineers.”

Polymarket pledges “comprehensive audit”

When contacted by Ars today, Polymarket did not specifically address the WSJ’s findings but said it is conducting an audit of its promotional content.

“As the world’s leading prediction market, we are committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets,” the Polymarket statement said. “We are part of a rapidly growing industry and are constantly evaluating ways to improve how we’re engaging and earning the trust of our audience. As part of that commitment, we are conducting a comprehensive audit of active promotional content to ensure it complies with our standards, as well as applicable regulatory and legal disclosure requirements.”

While false and misleading promotions can be punished by the Federal Trade Commission, the Trump administration has tried to limit regulation of prediction markets. The CFTC has been suing states that try to impose strict rules on prediction markets to ensure that the entities remain under the more permissive federal regulatory scheme. Polymarket and its rival Kalshi both have Donald Trump Jr. as an advisor, and a Trump Jr.-backed venture capital firm invested in Polymarket.

Trump’s Private Nickname for Barron Revealed

0
trump’s-private-nickname-for-barron-revealed
Trump’s Private Nickname for Barron Revealed


Barron Trump may be one of the most private members of the Trump family, but a new behind-the-scenes detail is giving the public a rare peek at his bond with his famous father.

The 20-year-old NYU student has mostly avoided the spotlight for years. But now, a new book is shedding light on the sweet nickname President Donald Trump reportedly used for his youngest son during a tense family moment.

According to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s upcoming book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Barron once called his father in a panic after learning about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The call reportedly happened on Sept. 10, 2025.

Barron, who was said to be a major fan of Kirk, was allegedly shaken by the news. The young Trump had previously been seated next to Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, at the State of the Union, making the tragedy feel even more personal.

But according to the book, Barron’s fear went beyond grief.

He was reportedly worried that his father, who has survived assassination attempts, could be next.

Trump’s response, according to the authors, was surprisingly tender.

“Calm down, honey, calm down,” the president reportedly told his son.

The nickname quickly raised eyebrows because Trump and former First Lady Melania Trump have long used affectionate terms for Barron, including “little boy” and “little Donald.”

Donald Trump’s other son, Eric Trump, has also said in the past that his father sometimes calls him “honey,” suggesting the nickname may be a family habit behind closed doors.

The new detail comes just days after Barron made a rare public appearance at Trump’s controversial Freedom 250 UFC event at the White House.

The spectacle was held on the South Lawn, where a special UFC arena was built for the highly publicized fight night. The setup drew criticism, but it also attracted a star-studded crowd.

Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump, Kai Trump and other members of the Trump family were on hand for the event. Top political figures including J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth were also reportedly there.

The celebrity guest list included Joe Rogan, Shane Gillis, Tony Hinchcliffe and Luke Bryan.

For Barron, the appearance was notable because he has remained mostly out of view since his father returned to the White House. Unlike his older siblings, Barron has not taken on a regular public political role.

He spent part of his childhood in the White House during Trump’s first term, when he was just 10 years old. Melania was often credited with keeping him shielded from the intense public glare.

After graduating high school, Barron enrolled at New York University. He was previously believed to be living in Trump Tower while attending school in New York City.

However, recent reports suggested he may have shifted to Washington, D.C., for the semester, possibly through NYU’s satellite campus.

“From what I was told,” a campus security officer told PEOPLE, “he’s doing a semester at another NYU campus.”

Even though Barron has stayed quiet in public, Trump insiders have suggested he has become surprisingly influential behind the scenes.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, previously said Barron helped guide his father’s media strategy by recommending podcast appearances.

“Barron has been very involved in selecting or recommending, I should say, a number of the podcasts that we should do,” Miller said on Politico’s Playbook Deep Dive podcast.

He added: “I got to tell you, hats off to the young man. Every single recommendation he’s had has turned out to be absolute ratings gold that’s broken the internet. He’s done a great job.”

Trump himself has also praised Barron’s instincts.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump said his youngest son would sometimes give him blunt advice.

“He’ll tell me sometimes, ‘Dad, this is what you have to do,’” Trump said.

For years, Barron has been seen as the mystery member of the Trump family — tall, quiet and rarely heard from.

But between his rare White House appearance, his reported influence on Trump’s media strategy and the newly revealed “honey” nickname, the once-shielded first son is suddenly back in the headlines.

China sanctions US defense, rare earth firms in retaliation

0
china-sanctions-us-defense,-rare-earth-firms-in-retaliation
China sanctions US defense, rare earth firms in retaliation

China hit back at Washington on Monday with a sweeping two-pronged retaliation, barring government departments from buying products from 46 US defense contractors and blacklisting 10 American companies from receiving Chinese dual-use exports.

The Ministry of Finance announced that procurement entities are prohibited from purchasing products manufactured by the 46 US firms, a list headed by Lockheed Martin Corporation and Raytheon Missiles & Defense. The restrictions, which exempt US-funded enterprises operating within Chin, took effect immediately.

At the same time, the Chinese Commerce Ministry added 10 US entities to its export control list under China’s Export Control Law, barring Chinese exporters from supplying them with dual-use items. The list includes rare earth miners MP Materials Corp and USA Rare Earth, alongside drone and defense electronics makers such as Red Cat Holdings, Teal Drones and Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.

“The move is in response to the US move to expand its so-called China military-industrial entity list and is aimed at protecting China’s national security and honoring non-proliferation commitments,” said a spokesperson of the Commerce Ministry.

Chinese state media described the measures as retaliation after Washington added dozens of Chinese firms to its list of alleged military-linked companies, a roster that now includes Alibaba, BYD and Baidu. Several of those firms have rejected the designations as baseless.

“The two measures unveiled on the same day are a response to Washington’s repeated weaponization of unilateral sanctions and entity lists to suppress Chinese enterprises, including its groundless addition of Chinese firms to its so-called military-industrial entity list,” Li Yong, an executive council member of the China Society for WTO Studies, told the Global Times on Monday. “If such US malpractices are left uncurbed, they will only escalate.”

“China’s control measures feature well-defined boundaries, targeting only items tied to military supplies and military manufacturing,” he said. “In stark contrast, the US arbitrarily broadens its crackdown scope, fabricating fictitious military links for companies with zero military relevance as an excuse to target China’s high-tech sector.”

He said Washington’s move to target leading Chinese firms across multiple sectors laid bare its true intention to curb China’s technology industry behind a national security facade.

The escalation comes weeks after United States President Donald Trump visited Beijing on May 14-15 for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping that both sides described as productive. The Trump administration said China agreed to purchase more American agricultural products and aircraft as part of the talks. However, the goodwill proved short-lived.

On June 8, the Pentagon announced the largest-ever expansion of its Chinese military company list, increasing the roster to 188 entities from 134 last year. The update swept in prominent civilian technology names including Alibaba, BYD and Baidu, extending the blacklist well beyond the defense sector and deepening concern in Beijing that Washington was using national security designations to target China’s commercial technology industry.

Chinese commentators say Beijing’s two retaliatory measures were calibrated to maximize pressure on US defense contractors and rare earth suppliers while sparing foreign firms with active commercial operations in China.

“The first eight companies cover America’s small drone ecosystem, aerospace payload chains, army tactical vehicle platforms and underwater surveillance systems,” says a Henan-based columnist using the pen name “Sanding Sugar.” “Their products demand extreme consistency in material quality, including permanent magnet performance, high-purity indium coatings and specialty ceramic stability. China is the dominant supplier of these critical minerals, and such a supply chain cannot simply be replaced overnight.”

“The more revealing sanction targets are MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, the two flagship companies in America’s push to rebuild its rare earth supply chain,” he says. “Blacklisting them does not stop them from mining critical mineral ores, but prevents them from obtaining China’s processed rare earth materials, separation products and magnet precursors. America’s plan to revive its rare earth sector just hit a compliance wall. America’s plan to revive its rare earth sector just hit a compliance wall.”

On the Finance Ministry’s ban covering 46 US firms, the writer says that Beijing wants to send two signals to the US:

  • The ministry now embeds all 46 names into screening systems across every provincial finance department and central budget unit, making the prohibition an automatic check on every purchase approval.
  • The ban also explicitly exempts US-funded enterprises operating inside China, so businesses like Apple’s component suppliers or medical equipment makers operating in the Chinese market will be exempted.

Xi Kunlun, a Hunan-based columnist, says Beijing’s intent was to split American firms into two camps, rewarding those with genuine commercial operations in China while punishing those tied to the US defense and rare earth sectors.

“This retaliation carries a deeper message than simple payback. China is telling Washington that suppressing Chinese companies comes at a price,” he says. “The US targeted China’s drone industry, so China put American drone makers on its Entity List. The US labels Chinese technology companies as military firms, so China blacklisted the equivalent American firms.”

“China is also playing its trump card, its massive domestic procurement market, cutting off the channels through which targeted US firms have profited from Chinese government spending,” he said. “If Washington wants to talk, come with respect. If it wants to fight, China will oblige.”

‘Decoupling is unrealistic’

Some observers say Beijing’s latest measures are more symbolic than a step toward full decoupling, noting that the 10 blacklisted US firms have little need to source raw materials and equipment from China, while Chinese government agencies had already largely stopped purchasing American defense products a long time ago. They say Beijing must also be careful that its retaliatory measures do not deter the foreign investment it badly needs.

In the first five months of this year, foreign direct investment into China fell 8.6% year-on-year to 327.29 billion yuan (US$45.3 billion), according to the Commerce Ministry. The ministry did not break down the figures by country but noted that investment from Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Switzerland and the US had increased, suggesting that inflows from most European and Asian economies may have declined.

A Shanxi-based writer says that some Chinese companies, including Xiaomi and semiconductor equipment maker Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc, had successfully petitioned to be removed from the Pentagon’s military company list after completing legal challenges.

“But to be honest about the shortcomings, Washington still sets the tone on military and security affairs and can pull its European and allied partners into lockstep. It is unrealistic for China to decouple with the West,” he says. “Western markets cannot be replaced quickly, emerging markets cannot yet fill China’s order gap, and some overseas trading partners will quietly avoid blacklisted Chinese firms rather than risk falling foul of US rules.”

Read: Japan seeks G7 price floors to break China’s rare earth grip

Follow Jeff Pao on X at @jeffpao3

America’s data center backlash is bipartisan — can it stay that way?

0
america’s-data-center-backlash-is-bipartisan-—-can-it-stay-that-way?
America’s data center backlash is bipartisan — can it stay that way?

This month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, unveiled a set of sweeping recommendations to rein in rampant data center development, urging Texas lawmakers to aggressively regulate the tech industry in a state that has a reputation for welcoming new development with open arms. At the same time, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the Democratic leader of a state known for regulatory restrictions, has declined to say whether she will sign a first-of-its-kind bill passed by her state legislature imposing a one-year moratorium on large-scale data centers. 

Welcome to the weird world of data center politics, where the usual partisan scripts around energy and natural resources don’t apply — yet.

Facilities housing massive amounts of computing equipment are springing up across the U.S. to quench the tech industry’s unslakable thirst for artificial intelligence. These AI-ready data centers, which consume more energy than the traditional cloud-computing centers that already exist to host and store various aspects of modern digital life, have become a political flashpoint at lightning speed — reshaping local and state politics from coast to coast as Americans grapple with high energy costs, natural resource depletion, and the repercussions of megadevelopment. 

In an era when political polarization is near record highs, data center backlash represents a rare area of consensus on both sides of the political aisle. Some 70 percent of Americans oppose local construction of AI data centers — 75 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans, according to polling from Gallup. Dig a little deeper into additional survey data, and the politics of data centers gets even more surprising. There are more conservative Republicans (53 percent) who oppose data centers in their local area than moderate Republicans (44 percent) — meaning that staunch conservatives are actually nearer to Democrats in their opposition. 

“I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a chart where conservative Republicans are closer to liberal Democrats than liberal [and] moderate Republicans are,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

A graph showing the percent of voters who oppose new data centers in their local area. The numbers show 53% of conservative republicans; 44% of moderate republicans; 58% of overall registered voters; 57% of moderate democrats; and 74% of liberal democrats oppose local data center construction.

Bipartisan anti-data center activism has emerged as one of the only counterbalances to AI’s inexorable rise. At least 75 data center projects worth roughly $130 billion were stalled or blocked in the first three months of 2026 alone. Political scientists and organizers tracking the backlash say the opposition is not driven by a single ideology so much as a recurring set of local grievances: rising electricity bills, water scarcity, noise, land use, tax breaks, distrust of tech companies and the billionaires who own them, and the fear that communities are being asked to share their resources with an industry that will provide little in return.

Still, those same experts note it’s too soon to say whether anger over data centers represents a lasting break in America’s partisan machinery. The backlash could trigger a broader questioning of Big Tech’s power in American life, perhaps resulting in real guardrails for an industry where few currently exist. Or it might be in its pre-partisan phase, waiting to be absorbed by the political tribalism that has shaped fights over climate, energy, housing, and so many of the other issues that have fallen victim to the culture wars.

more than 800 group working across 49 states to oppose some 1,500 planned data centers.

But what might look like a unified anti-data center movement from a distance is actually a series of distinct fights unfolding simultaneously. The concerns motivating a community in Virginia to oppose a data center might be different from those inspiring a municipality in California to take up the same fight. Even within local fights, people often have varied reasons for showing up: light pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, or existential fears about AI. 

Some research shows that Republicans and Democrats emphasize different risks when talking about data centers. “Republican officials often raise concerns about tax incentives and energy grid strain, while Democrats tend to focus on environmental impacts and resource consumption,” said a report from Data Center Watch, a project run by the AI firm 10a Labs that keeps tabs on local data center activity.

In Box Elder County, Utah, where Trump walked away with nearly 80 percent of the vote in 2024, a 40,000-acre data center project backed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary is facing intense backlash from rural conservative voters over its perceived impacts on the rapidly drying Great Salt Lake and the project’s electricity and property tax breaks. Earlier this month, voters in left-leaning Monterey Park, California, approved a ballot measure permanently banning data centers in order to “protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health.”  

Read Next

While the local opposition is place-specific, there are overlapping national political undercurrents that may be buoying the backlash regardless of place or party. The executives driving the data center boom — Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk (who last week became the world’s first trillionaire), Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and others — are far more familiar to Americans than the leaders of most major industries. 

“No one can name the CEO of Exxon Mobil,” said Alex Beauchamp, northern regional director at Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit advocacy group that has been pushing for the New York data center moratorium. That’s not the case with tech CEOs. “These guys are real, actual villains to a lot of people,” he added. 

For years, tech moguls tried to position themselves as visionary leaders ushering in a more just future, hiring huge numbers of workers to companies they promised had altruistic intentions. But the tides of political opinion have shifted as tech firms have grown larger, more powerful, and more entwined with the federal government while also laying off tens of thousands of employees and spending billions on data centers (just four tech companies are projected to spend a total of $670 billion on AI-related infrastructure this year). 

7 percent of voters in a recent survey said they trust tech CEOs to make decisions that affect their lives.

Then there’s the broader context of the rising cost of living motivating so many American voters right now, making communities especially sensitive to the effects of data centers on electricity bills and public resources. 

“We have this war that is making all prices go up, energy prices go up, so people are super aware of the ways that building other infrastructure in their towns is potentially going to make their access to less expensive energy impossible,” said Dana R. Fisher, director of the Center for Environment, Community, and Equity at American University, referring to the Iran War. “I think that works really well across ideological lines.”


Still, experts warn that the ties that bind America’s broad political spectrum in opposition to the AI boom could fray as the 2026 midterm elections approach and politicians seek to use the issue to their advantage. “Issues that can unite people across partisan lines, once they attract that broad political attention, the forces of partisanship tend to overwhelm everything else,” said Megan Mullin, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

It’s a lesson Beauchamp, at Food and Water Watch, remembers well from the campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing in New York. In 2014, New York became the first state with underground gas reserves to ban the practice of shooting water at high speeds horizontally through buried rock to unlock deposits of natural gas. In the years leading up to the ban, a broad political coalition of New Yorkers shared many of the same concerns that today’s data center activists hold. Fracking poses serious risks to local water supplies, contributes to air and noise pollution, and brings heavy industrial activity to rural areas unaccustomed to industry. 

After New York banned the practice, Beauchamp assumed other states would follow suit. But the issue quickly became deeply partisan, as fossil fuel lobbyists and Republican officials sought to position the anti-fracking movement as a green ploy to undermine energy production and hurt working-class communities. As of today, only five states have a fracking ban on the books. Politicians who were open to banning the practice have come to regret that position. Kamala Harris’ vow to ban fracking on the campaign trail in 2019 was one of Trump’s favorite offensive cudgels when the two candidates faced off for the presidency in 2024. 

Read Next

“This feels to me like the early days of the fracking fight,” Beauchamp said. “A lot of Republicans were really up in arms about it in the beginning, and then it slowly became a partisan issue.” 

Data centers could soon be swept into that same right-versus-left vortex — but some activists are holding room for the possibility that new coalitions could emerge out of it. “It’s a moment to re-scramble people’s brains and build new cross-partisan alliances,” said Evan Sutton, the founder of the communications consulting firm Firekit Campaigns, who has helped people opposing data centers across the U.S. connect with one another. “It’s a remarkable and probably very rare opportunity to create something different.”


What to know about data centers

Data centers are warehouse-like facilities housing the servers needed to store and process huge amounts of digital information. They’ve existed for decades, but the rise of artificial intelligence over the past few years has triggered a surge in new construction. Here’s some of our latest reporting on the key issues surrounding their development.

  • Jobs: The tech industry is spending millions to rebrand data centers as job creators, but research shows they often create fewer jobs than other industries like manufacturing.

This information last updated Feb. 27, 2026


0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts