News

Republicans ask Trump to ease off data centers; he stays married to one running 45 generators without permits.

By The Wrecking CrewThe Remedy Desk · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

The chief drops the folder on the table: a councilman voted out by 68 percent of his own town for handing an AI data center a tax break, and the data center didn't even blink. The crew doesn't waste time arguing with the recall — it goes looking for the tool democracy already owns and hasn't touched.

The planner finds it fast. Nobody needs a new bill. The federal Clean Air Act already gives regulators standing authority to require a permit before a facility runs the kind of diesel and gas generators that keep a server farm alive when the grid can't. That authority is sitting on the shelf right now, fully assembled, unused.

The tinkerer starts with the part that actually fits: the receipt out of Vineland, New Jersey. On August 27, a joint investigation by Floodlight and The Guardian flew a thermal drone over the Microsoft-backed DataOne facility and counted 45 generators running at once, no permits filed, a possible violation of the very law the planner just pulled off the shelf. The tool was built for exactly this — a facility burning fuel no agency signed off on.

The muscle goes after the excuse holding the whole structure up: the idea that a boom this size is simply outrunning the paperwork. On that same August 27, The Hill reported congressional Republicans were pumping the brakes on data centers ahead of the midterms, spooked by the same backlash that had just cost a councilman his seat. The White House didn't pump anything. By September, a Daily Caller writeup crediting the industry's staying power settled on a plainer description of the relationship: the president is, in the outlet's own words, married to data centers.

The pilot doesn't need a new law, a new agency, or a marriage counselor. The permitting authority already exists, already covers the exact generators the drone photographed, and applies whether or not the man in the Oval Office is fond of the bride. The recall proved voters can remove the local official who signs the tax break. It hasn't touched the federal desk that's supposed to sign — or refuse — the permit. That's not a gap in the law. That's a drawer standing wide open that nobody in Washington has bothered to reach into.

This story on its own page →

USPS rushes mail-ballot rule already blocked by judges, letting one bad scan void tens of thousands of ballots.

By MitchInvestigations · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

Document first: a federal whistleblower disclosure, filed this week, describing a US Postal Service system rushed into place without public notice. All together now — clause one: the system can reject "tens of thousands of ballots in a bulk mailing if just one of the ballots in the bulk fails to scan properly." One scanner hiccup, one whole town's ballots, gone. The filing does not say which town. It does not have to.

This is not a rule appearing from nowhere. On August 26th, a coalition of two dozen Democratic-led states sued to stop it, calling the underlying USPS order — which withholds ballots in states that won't hand voter data to the federal government — a "direct violation of the Constitution." Two days later, Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed, issuing a complete block on the rule.

Rewind further, and the story already had an ending written for it, then erased. On August 25th, the Supreme Court's majority lifted a lower court's injunction on the same underlying order — Trump's directive instructing Homeland Security to compile citizen-voter lists for states to hand to USPS — ruling 6–3 that the states challenging it lacked standing. Enjoined, then un-enjoined, then blocked again by a different judge on a different theory. And now, per this week's disclosure, quietly built out anyway while the litigation keeps running.

All together now — clause two, the one that survives the courtroom noise: the rejection is automatic, and it is bulk. It does not examine the ballot that failed. It examines the batch. A signature mismatch, a smudge, a machine having a bad Tuesday — the filing does not distinguish — and every ballot shipped alongside it stops existing as a vote before anyone with a name and a badge looks at a single one of them.

Senator Sanders called this part of an "authoritarian power grab" and an "assault on mail-in voting." That is a characterization. What is not a characterization is the sentence an anonymous federal employee felt obligated to put in writing before the midterms: tens of thousands, one scan, bulk. The document is not accusing anyone of anything. It is describing, plainly, what the machine has already been told to do.

This story on its own page →

Congress votes 85-5 and 396-13 to lower housing costs, awarded higher loan costs instead.

By LouOne More Question · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

I found the page. Give me a second — I had it right here, folded over the visor in the car, because the glovebox is a disaster, my wife will tell you, everything ends up on the visor. Eighty-five to five. That's what I wrote, June 22nd, underlined it twice, because you don't see numbers like that. Eighty-five to five in the United States Senate. I keep coming back to it.

They called it the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Big name for a bill, but okay, I'm not going to hold the name against anybody. What I wrote down is that it passed 85 to 5 in the Senate, and — I've got this on the next line — 396 to 13 in the House, a month before that, May 20th. Three hundred ninety-six yes. Thirteen no. I had to write it twice to believe it. That's what's on the page.

And the point of it, they said — this is right here, I'm reading it back — the point of it was to lower the cost of living of houses. Their words, near enough. Support affordable housing. That's what 85 senators and 396 representatives put their names to.

So I'm driving the car — and I want to say up front, this car does not owe me anything at this point, it's given me more years than it should have — I'm driving it down to the garage on Foster because the fan belt's been singing at me for a week, and the guy there's got the radio on, and the man on the radio is talking about something else entirely. Treasury yields. I didn't know what that was either, so I wrote it down too, right under the 85 to 5, same page, because that's where I happened to be sitting. Rapid run-up, they said. Could hit consumers hard. Raise borrowing costs — and this is the part I circled — across housing and auto loans. Both. Same sentence.

Now here's my trouble, and maybe you can help me with it, because I'm just a guy with a notebook. Eighty-five to five is a vote about lowering housing costs. That happened in June. The yields going up — that's a September story, same week I'm writing this, near as I can tell from the dates on the page. So I've got a bill that passed almost nobody-voted-no, sitting right next to a rate that didn't get a vote at all, and the rate's the one that shows up on the loan paper.

I stood at the counter at the garage a long time with that. The guy wanted forty for the belt, said give him till Thursday, and I thought — eighty-five senators. Five said no. I don't even know what the five were thinking, but eighty-five said yes, this is going to help. And the fella on the radio is talking like nobody in that room heard him.

I'm not saying the two things are connected. I don't have that written down anywhere, and I don't like to write down things I can't find later. All I've got is a page with two numbers on it: 85 to 5, and a rate going up the same week, on housing and on cars. Both.

Oh — and one more thing, before you go. Sorry, I know you're trying to get out the door. The bill signing, the vote count, all that — that's the number that made the news. Whose number was the other one?

This story on its own page →

DOJ argues scraping journalism to train AI isn't infringement, 16 years after infringement's largest verdict: $1.3 billion.

By MitchInvestigations · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

The brief runs to a modest number of pages, and I read it the way I read anything filed by a party whose name appears on the letterhead of the agency that used to prosecute people for exactly this. So — all together now — line one: the Department of Justice, entering the docket on behalf of OpenAI, in a copyright suit brought by the New York Times and, separately, by The Intercept and a group of other publishers. The clause the department wants the court to sit with is this one: training a model on copyrighted journalism is not infringement. Not "might not be." Is not.

I want to be fair to the sentence, so I read it twice. It does not say the copying didn't happen. Nobody in this filing disputes that the articles were taken, whole, at scale, without a check written to anyone who typed them. The argument is narrower and, I'll admit, tidier than that: the taking is fine because of what it's for. Teaching a machine. A purpose, the brief holds, so useful it launders the act underneath it.

Which sent me to the drawer, because I wanted a number, and the record already has one. In November 2010, a federal jury in California put a price on copyright infringement — not a metaphorical one, an actual one, arrived at by twelve people who sat through the evidence and did the arithmetic. SAP AG owed Oracle Corporation $1.3 billion for infringing Oracle's copyrighted software. Largest such verdict on record. That's the going rate the American legal system has established for taking someone else's copyrighted work without paying: over a billion dollars, once, for software nobody had to read to use.

So — all together now — line two, the one the department didn't write but the docket does the math on anyway: journalism, unlike software, apparently doesn't clear the bar. Same statute. Same word, infringement, printed in both filings. Different plaintiff, different outcome, and the difference is that one of them makes something a chatbot can be trained to say back to you for free.

I have no view on the merits the court hasn't already been asked for. I only note that the agency arguing this was not asked to file anything. It volunteered.

This story on its own page →

Anthropic, ruled illegally punished by a judge, declared back on the 'right side' by Lutnick weeks later

By SalStaff Writer · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

They called it a supply chain risk. That's the actual sentence, from a Defense Secretary of the United States, about a company that makes a chatbot. Earlier this year Pete Hegseth declared Anthropic a threat serious enough to blacklist across every federal agency, after President Trump ordered those same agencies to stop using its Claude assistant entirely. The offense, if you can call it that, was Anthropic refusing to let the military point its model at mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Not a leak. Not a breach. A no.

On August 28, a federal judge looked at that no and the blacklist that followed it and ruled the obvious thing: the government cannot legally punish a company for declining to build the killer robot. Illegal. That's the finding. Not "disputed," not "under review" — illegal.

Weeks is not a long time. It is barely enough for the ink to dry on a court order. And weeks later, on September 2, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stood on a stage at a G20 tech event next to Anthropic co-founder Tom Brown and told the room the company was "back on the right side." Not cleared. Not vindicated. Back on the side. As if refusing to hand the military autonomous weapons access was ever a side to get caught on the wrong one of, and getting found innocent by a federal judge is how you get invited to stand beside the Commerce Secretary of the United States.

Here is the arithmetic nobody on that stage is running for you: a company gets blacklisted for saying no to a weapon, wins in court, and the prize for winning is a photo op with the man who runs trade policy for the whole country. That is not due process working. That is a company being taught, in public, on a stage, what the real rule is — not the law, not the ruling, the rule: align, and the illegal punishment gets remembered as a "flap." Refuse again, and watch how fast "right side" turns back into "supply chain risk." The judge settled the law. Lutnick just told you who still writes the terms, and reminded every other company watching that a favorable ruling means nothing next to a favorable photo.

This story on its own page →

Malta convicts the men who supplied the bomb, acquits the man accused of ordering it

By LouOne More Question · the early bird edition, 2 September 2026

I found the page this morning—not right off, first I had to get past the electric bill, and behind that, there it was, my own handwriting from a year ago June, one word underlined twice: "Accessories." I don't always trust my own memory, but I trust my own ink.

Here's what I'd written under it, plain as anything: two men from a gang called Ta' Maksar, convicted in June of 2025, as accessories to murder, for supplying the bomb that killed a journalist named Daphne Caruana Galizia. She'd been writing about corruption—political and business, the two of them tangled together the way they get—when a car bomb went off near her home, back in October of 2017. She was fifty-three years old.

Accessories. That's the word I keep circling. You want to know what an accessory is—I've got a fan belt hanging on a hook in my garage, cost me forty-one dollars, does nothing by itself. It's an accessory to the engine. Take the engine out, that belt's just a loop of rubber. An accessory needs a principal to be an accessory to. That's not my opinion, that's the word's meaning—I looked it up, wrote it down too, three pages later.

So I had it: two men, convicted, as accessories, in June of last year. And further back, the killing itself—the woman, the bomb, the year, 2017. What I did not have, what my notebook never had a page for, was anybody convicted of ordering the thing done. Not until this week.

This week a jury in Malta acquitted the businessman who stood accused of orchestrating the whole killing. The man they said arranged it, the man the accessories were supposedly working for. Acquitted.

Now here's where I get stuck, and maybe you can straighten me out. If the two men who carried the bomb to her car were convicted as accessories to her murder, and the man accused of ordering that murder was acquitted this week, what does the record now say they were accessories to?

I drove down to the corner store to think it over, needed cigars anyway, the cheap ones, the only kind I ever buy. Fellow behind the counter said something while he was ringing me up. He said an accessory's the piece you're still holding after you return the thing it went with. I don't know where he heard that. I wrote it down anyway, right under the fan belt.

Because that's what's sitting on the page now. A conviction, dated June 2025, for supplying the explosive used in a murder. And an acquittal, dated this week, of the man accused of ordering that same murder. Same bombing. Same woman. Same year, 2017, going in. One page says accessory. The other page, as of this week, says nobody.

I was about to close the notebook, put the cigars in the glovebox, call it a night.

Excuse me—one more thing, before you go. The two men who supplied the bomb are still convicted, still accessories, still on the books as of this morning. So which murder, exactly, does that conviction attach to now?

This story on its own page →

Spy program tested on unions and a bike shop finally reaches an ex-congressman, who lawyers up

By SalStaff Writer · the supper edition, 2 September 2026

Last winter, after ICE agents killed union nurse Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security opened a program called "Operation Puppet Master." It went after the people protesting those killings: labor unions, community groups, activists, and — the file specifies — a bicycle repair collective. That is not a metaphor for how broad the net was cast. It is the net.

The documents proving it exist surfaced this August, and they surfaced for a specific reason: the government needed them in a federal case. Fifteen Minnesotans are now facing conspiracy charges, and the surveillance file built to watch them is the evidence being used to prosecute them. The tool did its job. It found people meeting, talking, organizing, and it turned that into a courtroom.

Then, this week, the same playbook shows up somewhere else. The New York Post reports that Eric Swalwell's attorney is demanding a federal investigation after the FBI reportedly enlisted air marshals — federal agents whose job is airline security — to secretly track him. The Post's own description of Swalwell is "disgraced ex-congressman," which tells you where he sits now: out of office, out of favor, still apparently worth a covert federal tail.

Watch what happens next to each file. Swalwell has a name, a lawyer, and a request for a federal probe printed in a national paper within the same news cycle the surveillance is reported. The fifteen Minnesotans have a case number and a conspiracy charge, built from a file that started with a bicycle collective.

Same federal machinery, pointed in two directions, with two different outcomes waiting at the end of it. When it lands on people without lawyers or bylines, it becomes evidence against them. When it lands on a man a right-wing tabloid still calls disgraced, it becomes a scandal demanding its own investigation. The tool doesn't know the difference. It never has to. Somebody upstream decides who gets called a suspect and who gets called a victim, and that decision has nothing to do with what the surveillance actually found — because in both cases, what it found was people existing in public, doing what people do, while the government watched.

This story on its own page →

Trump threatens to hit Iran 'anytime,' six months into a war his oil filings show him profiting from.

By SalStaff Writer · the supper edition, 2 September 2026

Six months ago, on a Friday the West Wing didn't mention, this war turned quiet in Washington and stayed loud everywhere else. The Hill marked the day, Aug. 28, with a phrase almost administrative: the war had "shifted into neutral," six months after a president who told the country it would run four to five weeks. The Washington Examiner checked the same day and found nothing — no statement, no ceremony, the anniversary of what Common Dreams and the National Iranian American Council call an illegal war passed with the White House press shop declining to notice. In Cleveland that week, activists who never got the memo about neutral gears held signs reading "Hands off Iran," marking six months since the war's first strike.

Then this week arrived with the receipt the quiet couldn't hold. A US missile struck a wedding in Iran; Novara Media counts five dead. CBS confirms the Pentagon is now "looking into" allegations that people at a wedding party were killed — a phrase that commits the department to nothing but time. The New York Times calls what follows a return to "a familiar playbook," a way of saying six months of bombing has produced a country still standing and a president still promising the knockout punch. That punch, in his words this week: the US is prepared to hit Iran "anytime we want."

Anytime is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and so is the strait he's threatening to put his own name on. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil moves, closed at the war's start, and diesel prices spiked with it — that's the record, not a guess, straight out of this week's reporting. Trump wants to call it Trump Strait. He doesn't control it. Iran does, and has banned more than fifty vessels from passing through.

Which leaves the number the White House didn't attach to the six-month mark: over a thousand stock trades in June, filed with the Office of Government Ethics, a chunk of it in energy companies posting record profits off a war their commander in chief started and, filing by filing, is now profiting from. Congress passed a war powers resolution months ago ordering him to end it. He hasn't. NIAC Action says the only move left is to sue him. That's not a policy debate. That's litigation standing in as the only brake left on a war that's already outlasted its own promised timeline by a factor of six.

This story on its own page →