Update(2145ET): Drone attack on Mecca from unknown location being reported overnight, though the Saudi coalition has been prompted to blame Yemen’s Shia Houthis:

Saudi Arabia and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have condemned what they described as a “heinous” Houthi attack targeting Mecca.

A Houthi official, however, rejected Saudi Arabia’s account that its forces had shot down a drone heading toward the holy city, calling the report “a worn-out lie.”- AFP

And emerging reporting via Al Jazeera:

The Saudi-led coalition spokesperson, Turki al-Maliki, said Royal Saudi Air Defence Forces intercepted the hostile drone before it entered the restricted airspace on Tuesday evening.

Al-Maliki condemned the incident as an attempt to frighten worshippers and harm civilians, warning that the security of the two holy mosques and pilgrims is a “red line”.

The Houthis have previously denied targeting Mecca, saying that they do not target holy sites.

Currently a number of fake or old videos are circulating; however, the Saudis are reporting the incident.

*  *  *

Israeli media on Tuesday is awash with reports that the Israeli government is now quietly providing intelligence to Saudi Arabia amid the raging fight with Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The claims definitely ring true given Israel has long faced immediate threats out of Yemen, after earlier in the Gaza war Israeli territory suffered several Houthi ballistic missile hits, including near sensitive facilities like airports. Also, Saudi and Israeli-linked ships are effectively banned from Red Sea shipping amid Houthi attacks.

One Israeli report reads: “Israel and Saudi Arabia are engaged in direct dialogue facilitated by the United States Central Command over potential Israeli intelligence assistance to Riyadh against the Houthis, a regional diplomat told i24NEWS.” Jerusalem Post also says that the intel-sharing is already happening.

“The diplomat said the discussions are intended to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s ability to confront the growing Houthi threat, with Israel potentially supplying intelligence on the group’s military positions, weapons infrastructure and operational plans,” the report adds.

CENTCOM chief Bradley Cooper has been in Saudi Arabia, where a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took place the past weekend. MbS has urgently requested military help from Washington and London. Only Britain is said to be mulling a new Yemen intervention on any serious level. Riyadh is also appealing to Egypt’s President Sisi.

The Times of Israel separately reports that “The goal of the contacts is to share Israeli intelligence that could help Riyadh defend itself.”

The kingdom has of late come under direct ballistic missile and drone attack, and is seeking to especially protect its oil infrastructure, amid efforts to bring the damaged East-West pipeline back online after what appeared to be drones out of Shia militias in Iraq.

Middle East Eye says Netanyahu is ready to once again press a multi-front war:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered “Israel’s services” to countries in the Arabian Peninsula and has expressed a willingness to participate in a “comprehensive war” against Ansar Allah, the Houthi movement in Yemen, Lebanese media have reported.

The report, by Al-Akhbar editor Ibrahim al-Amin, said that Netanyahu was pressing Israel’s security establishment and military to prepare for possible action against Iran and Hezbollah.

Israel has already for months been pummeling south Lebanon, despite what’s supposed to be a ceasefire with Hezbollah, and has moved troops into occupy a ‘buffer zone’.

Amb. Huckabee is not too convincing…

Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee: “I don’t think it’s quite that bad. What we do have is a for sure skirmish between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but it has not really gone across the region. That’s the good news. The US and the Houthis still have a ceasefire. That’s a good thing.” pic.twitter.com/56iWv0JfVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 15, 2026

Saudi-Israeli intelligence sharing would certainly be seen as provocative among Arab populations, including Saudi Arabia’s own; however, it was likely going on during the Syrian proxy war to oust Assad. Gulf-Israeli cooperation against the ‘pro-Shia axis’ also reached a peak during the last decade.

After the US was essentially forced to conduct a major and rapid draw down of forces from the Gulf and Mideast region in the wake of Iran’s ‘unexpectedly’ large retaliation for Operation Epic Fury, it seems all that Washington is left to do is arm regional allies to the teeth and wish them the best.

Early this month the US approved two potential Saudi defense packages valued at a whopping $5.75 billion. The forthcoming deals will reportedly focus on transferring extended-range precision bombs and bolstering Abrams tanks in the kingdom.

Ironically this comes at a moment that Saudi-backed coalition forces in Yemen – with all its military tech – are getting rolled back by Ansar Allah fighters in sandals.

Naturally, next on the list comes Israel.

On Tuesday, over a week since the planned Saudi sale was reported, The Washington Post reveals the following:

President Donald Trump’s administration is planning to sell to Israel a munitions package worth $2.8 billion, which will include tens of thousands of highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs, according to a U.S. official familiar with the sale.

The planned sale, which has been informally communicated to relevant congressional committees who weigh in on large arms sales, includes 20,000 MK 84s and 20,000 BLU-117s, the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said.

WaPo calls the package “the largest” planned sale of 2,000 pound bombs to Israel in years.

Just prior to initial reporting of this dropping at around midday Tuesday, Tucker Carlson revealed on X: “According to an informed federal official, in the coming months the Trump administration plans to send a total of 40,000 Mark 84 and Blu-117 bombs to the government of Israel. Each bomb weighs 2,000 pounds. This appears to be the largest transfer of conventional explosive ordnance from the United States in modern history.”

Carlson put it in perspective in the following commentary:

How big is this shipment? It amounts to 40,000 tons of bombs. For perspective, the largest American air raid of World War Two was the Eighth Air Force’s attack on Berlin in March of 1945. Combined, the 2,023 Allied aircraft involved dropped about 3,000 tons of bombs. That’s 7.5 percent of what Trump is sending to Israel. That same month, March of 1945, the US Army Air Forces began the single most destructive bombing raid in human history, Operation Meetinghouse over Tokyo. More than 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed. By the end of that operation, the US had dropped 1,600 tons of bombs. That’s four percent of what Trump is sending to Israel. World War Two ended five months later, when the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. The shipment Trump is sending to Israel amounts to more than three times the destructive power of that nuclear explosion. There is no precedent for what the Trump administration is doing. Nor is there a justification. The government of Israel is not fighting World War Two, or even a war. It is engaged in periodic skirmishes with a guerrilla force in Lebanon, and it is working to exterminate an unarmed civilian population in Gaza. Neither front requires modern 2,000-pound bombs.

The former Fox host further warned this portends Israel could soon go even more ‘gloves off’ and unleash further hell on Gaza and Lebanon, or possibly even Iran – at a moment the US seems to be trying to find an exit from the hot phase of the conflict.

More from Carlson:

How did this happen? The request for 40,000 new high-explosive civilian-killing bombs originated at the US Embassy in Jerusalem, which is run by Christian Zionist Ambassador Mike Huckabee and his aide David Milstein, who is the stepson of Fox News host Mark Levin. From there it moved to the State Department, where Marco Rubio enthusiastically approved it. At this point, only four more people need to sign off before the bombs ship to Israel: Senators Jim Risch and Jeanne Shaheen, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and Congressmen Brian Mast and Gregory Meeks, the top two members of the equivalent House committee. All four are committed neocons. Collectively they’ve taken millions from the Israel lobby. In 2015, Brian Mast traveled to Israel to volunteer for the Israeli military. In 2023, Mast showed up in the House of Representatives wearing an IDF uniform. It’s hard to imagine any of them hesitating before sending more free bombs to Israel. Only public outrage can stop this.

Poll after recent poll has shown that by and large the American public is finally questioning Washington’s blank check approach to Israel.

DropSite: Carlson calls the taxpayer-funded, roughly $3 billion package “a gift” to a government “working to exterminate an unarmed civilian population in Gaza.”

🔴 Tucker Carlson reports, citing a federal official, that President Trump plans to send Israel 40,000 MK-84 and BLU-117 bombs, each weighing 2,000 pounds, in the coming months. The Washington Post’s John Hudson separately also confirmed the proposed transfer.

Carlson calls the… https://t.co/xBDJxO0P3R

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 15, 2026

And plenty of MAGA and conservative ‘influencers’ have called out Trump’s Israel policy as opposite America First. This as the Iran war is continuing to prove to be deeply unpopular. This also after over 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza. Israeli officials themselves openly admitted this figure.

You know those Flock surveillance cameras everyone hates? Trump just came out in favor of them. 

Speaking with reporters on Sunday on Air Force One en route to Joint Base Andrews, Trump endorsed the AI-powered mass surveillance tool. 

“Speaking of [AI], Flock cameras. You haven’t talked a lot about these Flock cameras. A lot of law enforcement say they really help them. Would you be willing to back that?” a reporter asked Trump. 

“No, I sort of like them because of that, because of law enforcement. But some people don’t. They think it’s an infringement,” Trump replied, adding “I like them.” 

Trump previously said in August that he would make up his mind regarding Flock cameras “over the next couple of weeks,” telling the DCNF “You have pros and cons, right? It’s being studied right now.” 

As the Epoch Times notes further, in recent months, multiple cities across the United States have removed their Flock cameras, including Tempe, Arizona; Bellingham, Massachusetts; Cave Creek, Arizona; and multiple counties in Texas.

Earlier this month, the Dallas Police Department said the agency would shut down hundreds of Flock cameras in the coming days in response to a pause in funding.

Florida’s Department of Transportation, meanwhile, said in a memo that it would end its use of license-plate reading cameras, including those made by Flock.

More than 100 jurisdictions have canceled their contracts with Flock and other automated license plate reader providers, according to a database from the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that says it aims to end government abuse of power.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley has pushed back against the growing concerns about the cameras, saying that people should be worried about their privacy but added that the license plate-reading cameras can be used to promote safety.

“I value my privacy, my family values their privacy, my employees value their privacy, but what we’re talking about is safety as well,” he told Fox News in August. “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing.”

“And what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise—when I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban, that’s like banning vehicles,” he said.

The issue has also become a midterm campaign target and has drawn scrutiny in Congress.

In Congress, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he launched a probe into Flock cameras and demanded that Langley provide his office answers on safeguards to protect Americans’ data.

Earlier this year, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) introduced a measure in the House of Representatives, the “Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act,” that would bar federal agencies from using automated surveillance systems to track, record, and identify people. That includes automated license plate-reading systems like Flock.

Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Pennsylvania governor seeking reelection and considered a potential contender for the White House in 2028, said in late August that he would support a statewide ban. In early September, his Republican opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, said in a statement, “Flock cameras are an intrusive invasion of privacy and they should be banned.”

Zachary Stieber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

By Julianne Geiger, of OilPrice.com

Libya’s National Oil Corporation is threatening to declare force majeure after members of the security force assigned to protect the country’s oil infrastructure shut a pipeline valve and halted production at two fields.

Production has stopped completely at the Hamada and Tahara oilfields and at a pumping station after members of the Petroleum Facilities Guard closed a valve on the main Hamada-Zawiya crude pipeline, NOC said Tuesday.

The shutdown could spread.

The Petroleum Facilities Guard said it would impose partial production cuts for one week at several additional fields, including Wafa, Al-Khamsa and El Feel. A full shutdown would follow if its demands are not met.

The Guard wants to be transferred financially and administratively from Libya’s defense ministry to the National Oil Corporation and has called for a timetable to complete the move.

NOC said it could declare force majeure if the closed valve is not reopened or if similar shutdowns hit other oilfields.

Libya has been here before. Political groups, armed factions and workers have repeatedly used oilfields, pipelines and terminals as leverage since the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi.

The latest disruption lands just as Libya is trying to push production much higher.

Output has climbed to roughly 1.4 million barrels per day, its highest level in more than a decade. NOC is targeting 1.6 million bpd by the end of 2026 and 2 million bpd by the early 2030s.

Getting there could require $36 billion to $40 billion in foreign investment, according to NOC Chairman Masoud Suleman.

International companies have already started moving back in. Libya signed exploration and production-sharing agreements this year with Repsol, Turkish Petroleum, Eni, QatarEnergy and MOL following its first major licensing round in 17 years. BP, Shell, Exxon and Chevron have also been pursuing a return.

NOC received a $2 billion allocation under Libya’s 2026 budget to support its production plans.

The problem is much older than the investment push: fields capable of producing more oil are still vulnerable to whoever controls the valve.

Israeli media on Tuesday is awash with reports that the Israeli government is now quietly providing intelligence to Saudi Arabia amid the raging fight with Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The claims definitely ring true given Israel has long faced immediate threats out of Yemen, after earlier in the Gaza war Israeli territory suffered several Houthi ballistic missile hits, including near sensitive facilities like airports. Also, Saudi and Israeli-linked ships are effectively banned from Red Sea shipping amid Houthi attacks.

One Israeli report reads: “Israel and Saudi Arabia are engaged in direct dialogue facilitated by the United States Central Command over potential Israeli intelligence assistance to Riyadh against the Houthis, a regional diplomat told i24NEWS.” Jerusalem Post also says that the intel-sharing is already happening.

“The diplomat said the discussions are intended to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s ability to confront the growing Houthi threat, with Israel potentially supplying intelligence on the group’s military positions, weapons infrastructure and operational plans,” the report adds.

CENTCOM chief Bradley Cooper has been in Saudi Arabia, where a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took place the past weekend. MbS has urgently requested military help from Washington and London. Only Britain is said to be mulling a new Yemen intervention on any serious level. Riyadh is also appealing to Egypt’s President Sisi.

The Times of Israel separately reports that “The goal of the contacts is to share Israeli intelligence that could help Riyadh defend itself.”

The kingdom has of late come under direct ballistic missile and drone attack, and is seeking to especially protect its oil infrastructure, amid efforts to bring the damaged East-West pipeline back online after what appeared to be drones out of Shia militias in Iraq.

Middle East Eye says Netanyahu is ready to once again press a multi-front war:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered “Israel’s services” to countries in the Arabian Peninsula and has expressed a willingness to participate in a “comprehensive war” against Ansar Allah, the Houthi movement in Yemen, Lebanese media have reported.

The report, by Al-Akhbar editor Ibrahim al-Amin, said that Netanyahu was pressing Israel’s security establishment and military to prepare for possible action against Iran and Hezbollah.

Israel has already for months been pummeling south Lebanon, despite what’s supposed to be a ceasefire with Hezbollah, and has moved troops into occupy a ‘buffer zone’.

Amb. Huckabee is not too convincing…

Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee: “I don’t think it’s quite that bad. What we do have is a for sure skirmish between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but it has not really gone across the region. That’s the good news. The US and the Houthis still have a ceasefire. That’s a good thing.” pic.twitter.com/56iWv0JfVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 15, 2026

Saudi-Israeli intelligence sharing would certainly be seen as provocative among Arab populations, including Saudi Arabia’s own; however, it was likely going on during the Syrian proxy war to oust Assad. Gulf-Israeli cooperation against the ‘pro-Shia axis’ also reached a peak during the last decade.

Authored by Thomas Savidge via The Daily Economy,

Over Labor Day weekend, amidst Americans’ attempts to enjoy the waning days of summer, The New York Times published an article titled “Trump Officials Draft Plan to Pay At-Home Parents, Using Funds for Working Ones.” Per the story, the administration’s proposal would use funds from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which subsidizes daycare for working parents, to pay stay-at-home parents for their at-home childcare.

My family could potentially qualify for the payment, but my wife and I understand that this program could jeopardize our children’s future. While families may find these cash transfers helpful in the short-term, the cost of these transfers could exacerbate the US’s already fiscally unstable situation.

What This Proposal Could Look Like

According to the Times article, the Trump administration is drafting a rule that would let some married households use CCDF funds to support a parent caring for their child at home. The other spouse would have to work at least 35 hours per week, and benefits would still be income-limited. Eligibility and payment terms would depend on final policy.

The CCDF currently funds “center-based childcare providers” (daycares) as well as family childcare providers and in-home childcare, so long as these providers are licensed and meet state and local requirements applicable for professional caregivers. The proposed change would make a qualifying child’s own parent eligible to receive the same support.

Outside of these scant details, little is known about the proposal. A similar policy was, however, proposed in a Heritage Foundation report last January. Instead of using CCDF funds, the report proposes a separate Home Childcare Equalization credit. The hypothetical tax credit would add up to $2,000 per eligible child under five to Heritage’s proposed Family and Marriage credit. Marriage and earned income would be required, and benefits received through the CCDF (as well as the child and dependent care tax credit) would reduce the proposed credits dollar for dollar.

Heritage estimates that its two credits together would cost about $188.7 billion over ten years, and proposes other spending cuts to offset part of the cost. The new proposal will have its own budget consequences. Redirecting existing funds and creating additional benefits require different fiscal assessments.

Greater Parental Choice, But Minimal Impact On Fertility

Care provided by a parent has an economic cost even when no bill arrives. When one parent stays home, that parent likely gives up earnings as well as career advancement. For most, the trade-off is worthwhile. Interviews of highly educated mothers who choose to be stay-at-home parents to many children found these women “see maternity as a high-risk and high-reward endeavor, an ambitious-but-potentially-thrilling life project.” Furthermore, research on mothers’ wellbeing strengthens the case for parental choice. A study of more than 2,000 mothers linked better wellbeing to employment arrangements that matched mothers’ preferences. A separate longitudinal study found elevated depressive symptoms among unemployed mothers only when they wanted paid work. Offering greater choice for parents among existing funds may provide a silver lining: parents will be better able to pursue the career-family dynamic that best suits their needs and goals.

That silver lining, however, must be taken into context. While not stated explicitly, this CCDF proposal is part of the administration’s broader efforts to combat declining birthrates. In May, the White House grouped support for stay-at-home parents with fertility benefits, the Child Tax Credits, and Trump Accounts. An IVF announcement last February explicitly cited declining fertility and the goal of “more babies and expanding American families.” That broader demographic ambition makes the likely impact on fertility relevant, even if the forthcoming CCDF proposal does not mention it.

Claims that this change (or other fiscal stimulus programs) can usher in a baby boom deserve skepticism. An OECD review finds that cash benefits and tax incentives generally produce modest, sometimes temporary fertility increases. As my colleague Jeff Degner and I noted last January, the Heritage report rightfully admits: “While other nations have tried to reverse declining birthrates through financially generous family policies, none has succeeded in restoring fertility to replacement levels. This demonstrates that government spending alone does not ensure demographic success.”

The evidence does not establish whether this proposal would increase fertility. Even if it did produce a temporary increase in births, that could partly reflect families having children sooner without increasing their eventual family size.

Greater choice can be assessed on its own merits; lawmakers should not count on a large fertility response to justify the expense.

The Best Inheritance? Fiscal Discipline And Prosperity

Broader eligibility does not automatically require more federal spending, but, with a fixed budget, more applicants could mean greater competition for smaller benefits. Families excluded from parental care payments could press for inclusion, while existing recipients seek protection from funding reductions. Lawmakers often find it easier to increase spending than to choose among competing claims.

Funding decisions about this proposal take place against a federal debt burden that has already passed $40 trillion. In its February outlook, the Congressional Budget Office projected that debt held by the public would rise from 101 percent of gross domestic product in 2026 to 120 percent by 2036. Existing commitments already put borrowing costs on an unsustainable path.

Persistent borrowing can absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment, weakening the growth that supports future wages. CBO’s analysis of delayed debt stabilization finds that waiting to adjust increases the eventual shock and imposes greater burdens on younger generations. Those consequences belong in any discussion of helping children.

What really matters for family stability is sustained spending restraint that reduces deficits and makes room for lasting tax relief. Parents, my wife and I included, could keep more of what we earn and decide how to use it. Fiscal discipline must accompany the promises of lower taxes. Additionally, tackling inflation, the most corrosive anti-family force of all, can help make life more affordable.

Any CCDF reform should explain its funding limit and provide a workable transition for current recipients. Those standards should apply to the benefits my household may receive as firmly as to programs serving other Americans.

My wife and I would rather Washington make difficult spending choices while we can help bear the adjustment. Our children will live with the consequences of our choices now long after any parental care payments end. Lasting prosperity is the inheritance most worthy of preserving.

By 2030, the PJM Interconnection, the largest US electrical grid in the US serving 67 million people in 13 northeast states, is likely to face a “loss of load expectation,” or LOLE –  a key reliability metric used by power system planners to measure the expected number of hours or days per year that a power grid’s electricity generation will fail to meet customer demand – between six and 100 times worse than the grid operator’s planning criterion, mainly due to the addition of large-load data centers, according to a study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

The PUC and the firms that produced the report – Synapse Energy Economics, Mondre Energy and Aspen Technologies – characterized it as an independent analysis aimed at developing load projections and evaluating resource adequacy under a set of likely possible futures, according to UtillityDive.

In models covering 2027 through 2030, both a reference scenario and a high-load, low-supply scenario show PJM’s planning criteria for resource adequacy not being met. Only under a scenario with no new data centers is the region able to meet PJM’s target LOLE of 0.1, the report said.

PJM’s standard is designed to limit potential electricity shortages “to approximately one event every 10 years,” said a PUC release about the report. 

In the study’s reference scenario, which relies on PJM’s 2026 load forecast, the modeled 2030 LOLE is 0.59, “or nearly six times worse than the PJM planning criterion,” it said.

In a “worst-case future” of higher-than-expected load additions and constrained resource deployment, the modeled LOLE is 13.20 — “over 100 times worse than PJM’s planning criterion,” indicating an expectation of “more than 13 days with loss of load events per year.”

“As in the Reference scenario, these reliability issues are largely due to surging data center additions,” the study said.

“This analysis sends a clear warning: electricity demand and supply are moving out of balance, and the status quo is not sustainable,” PUC Chairman Steve DeFrank said in a statement. “We need urgent action at PJM and a broader Pennsylvania energy strategy that makes sure our supply of electricity keeps pace with demand.”

PJM, in a statement to CBS affiliate WJAC, acknowledged that new data center loads are growing faster than supply.

“PJM has taken a number of actions to both increase electricity supply and manage new demand in line with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge taken by data center developers to shield residential customers and other ratepayers from bearing reliability risks or cost increases associated with data center development,” said Jeff Shields, PJM’s senior manager of external communications.

The reference scenario anticipates Pennsylvania remaining a net energy exporter, but sees its exports “decrease from about 91 TWh in 2025 to about 69 TWh by 2035 and 38 TWh by 2040,” the report said.

In the high-load, low-supply scenario, Pennsylvania becomes a net importer of 5 TWh by 2040. 

“Because this scenario has a large amount of unmet load in 2031 and later years, it is likely that some amount of this 2035 and 2040 load will be unmet, as there will not be enough regional generation to meet PJM-wide load requirements,” the report says.

Last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, D, issued an executive order that the state will offer preferential permitting to data center projects with peak demand of more than 25 MW if they commit to certain requirements, including sourcing their electricity from new power supplies.

The PUC also voted unanimously Thursday to approve two motions concerning data center development and ratemaking. One of the motions directs PUC staff to propose updates to the state’s rules for emergency curtailment, and to organize a technical conference on cost allocation for data centers.

The report notes that PJM and the U.S. Department of Energy “have implemented several initiatives, policies, and programs to address growing concerns about PJM’s resource adequacy,” including interconnection queue reform and reliability backstop procurement. 

“PJM and its stakeholders are also currently discussing additional initiatives such as load forecasting improvements,” the report said. “DOE has also committed to keeping some coal-fired power plants online beyond their retirement date, in an effort to maintain resource supply in the region.”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

One of the cases that I have been following as we approach the October term of the Supreme Court is Calce v. New York, a case challenging New York’s ban on stun guns. While it is important not to overplay the significance of the order, some justices clearly want to hear more on the case before deciding whether to grant a writ of certiorari for review. New York City was just ordered to file a response to the petition. With the two other major Second Amendment cases on the docket, a review in Calce could be one of the most impactful Second Amendment terms in decades.

Calce is a challenge brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs against New York City’s ban on stun guns. They argue that “electronic arms” like stun guns and lasers are protected under the Second Amendment. The only difference is that, rather than a projectile, such weapons “work by producing electrical pulses that make the target’s muscles spasm, and thus quickly but temporarily disable him.”

Notably, nine years ago, the Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit that challenged a similar ban. The Court rejected the logic of the First Circuit, which held that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends… to… arms… that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales.

Massachusetts responded to the loss by changing its law. In so doing, Massachusetts shows a modicum of strategic sense to avoid another likely loss. However, New York City (as usual) was undeterred.

Notably, the district court judge and the Second Circuit upheld the ban on the ground that the challengers failed to “provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use.” That seems strikingly close to Caetano.

Calce could clarify not only the “common use” element but also the burden on challengers in such cases. The Second Circuit seems to have departed from the guidance of last year’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez, rejecting Hawaii’s “Vampire law” limiting areas where lawful weapons could be carried in the state without prior approval.

New York City must now respond by October 8, and the Court could decide on review at the October 15 conference.

If granted, the case would join an already weighty Second Amendment docket. The Court will be hearing arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Both cases will address the move in various blue states to ban AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons, including the popular Glock 9mm. The addition of Calce would make this a formidable Second Amendment term.

These cases also show how the same blue jurisdictions continue to feed the Court with Second Amendment cases that will likely only reinforce the rights that they are seeking to limit. I have previously written how New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.

Calce has the makings of a truly stunning Second Amendment case in extending protections to electronic arms.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

Artificial intelligence is about to become one of the most consequential issues in the 2026 midterm elections.

Maybe not immigration-level consequential or inflation-level consequential. But over the next two months, I think Americans are going to hear a lot more about a question that, until very recently, mostly belonged to Silicon Valley and a relatively small group of researchers: should the United States government force the development of frontier AI to slow down?

That question exploded into the political mainstream today. My take is that we may only get one chance to stop AI before it gets out of control, so let’s make sure we do it. President Trump spent Monday rejecting these types of growing warnings, calling the idea that AI could eventually escape human control a “HOAX” and comparing those concerns to what he regards as previous political hoaxes.

“I am the Hoax Buster, and I’m right now breaking another Hoax — That AI is going to take over, consume, and destroy the World,” Trump wrote.

His position is that America needs to develop AI as quickly as possible, excessive regulation risks handing the technological advantage to China, and Washington shouldn’t stand in the industry’s way. Trump went so far as to call AI and data centers potentially “the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History,” bigger than oil, gold, diamonds or even the internet. His administration has also favored voluntary government evaluation procedures for certain frontier models rather than mandatory licensing or preclearance.

Later in the day on Monday, Trump’s comic book nemesis Kamala Harris took almost precisely the opposite position. “The frontier of artificial intelligence is advancing at an alarming speed,” Harris said, calling for Congress to urgently pass legislation creating a new federal entity responsible for oversight and independent testing of advanced AI. She also called for the United States to pursue an international agreement, including with China, designed to establish safety standards and limit the speed of AI development.

And there, in a single day, is the outline of what could become a major midterm debate: accelerate versus slow down, beat China at virtually any cost versus coordinate internationally to establish limits, and keep Washington largely out of the way versus create a new federal regulator overseeing frontier AI.

And the issue is unusually consequential because the stakes aren’t confined to politics. They extend directly into the stock market, as I wrote about days ago in my piece Congress Could Kill AI Stocks Before AI Kills Us.

My argument was simple: virtually the entire AI investment boom rests on an assumption of continued rapid development. Hundreds of billions of dollars in expected spending on chips, data centers, electricity, networking equipment and infrastructure are ultimately downstream from that assumption. Slow the technology down and Wall Street eventually has to slow some of those assumptions down with it.

Monday offered a glimpse of that possibility. AI-linked stocks fell after some of the industry’s most important executives began publicly supporting a slower pace of frontier development. Nvidia fell about 3%, AMD roughly 4%, and several other AI-related names suffered considerably larger declines. Investors suddenly had to contemplate something that has barely been incorporated into the AI bull case: what happens if the constraint on AI isn’t chips, electricity or capital, but the federal government?

Which brings me to Trump. My suspicion is that Trump would say almost anything necessary to keep the stock market and the AI investment boom moving higher. That’s my interpretation, not something I can prove, but it isn’t difficult to understand why a president would be reluctant to embrace a policy that could potentially kneecap one of the largest capital-investment booms in the country…and his favorite political scorecard.

What is harder for me to accept is the idea that Trump somehow understands the technological risks better than the people actually building these systems. Elon Musk, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have now all publicly supported slowing or “pacing” frontier AI development.

Whether it was a PR stunt this weekend or not is moot at this point. These are people running organizations developing some of the most advanced AI systems on Earth, with access to information about their capabilities that almost nobody outside those laboratories possesses.

Brazil’s October 4 general election is around the corner and is already sparking a rally in local markets, with a presidential runoff expected on October 25.

Right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro is statistically tied with socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in potential runoff scenarios.

“Brazilian elections could not be more uncertain and competitive, as recent polls demonstrate. Voting intentions now show right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro technically tied with current President Lula in a potential second-round runoff. This political shift comes as the country witnesses some of its most intense institutional noise, centered on the Supreme Court (STF) and the Banco Master case. The next important event around these developments will be the extraordinary Supreme Court session,” Goldman analysts wrote in a note on Monday. 

The latest Quaest survey released on Monday showed Bolsonaro at 42% and Lula at 40%, within the poll’s two-percentage-point margin of error. A separate BTG/Nexus survey put Lula at 47% against Bolsonaro’s 46%, highlighting how tight the race remains.

Last Thursday, Polymarket showed Bolsonaro overtaking Lula, with that lead maintained as of Tuesday morning. Bolsonaro’s odds of winning currently stand at 52%, while Lula’s are around 45%.

Brazilian stocks have rebounded alongside rising Polymarket bets on a Bolsonaro victory. 

The tight presidential election race comes amid a deepening Supreme Court crisis over Banco Master that has impacted Lula. Later today an extraordinary session will be held to consider whether to authorize an investigation into Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged ties to banker Daniel Vorcaro. Moraes denies wrongdoing and has described the allegations as politically motivated.

For markets, the one development is the resilience of Brazilian assets against a difficult macro environment. The rally is consistent with traders pricing in that a new government could produce a different fiscal and economic-policy direction. 

Goldman analysts outlined the Brazil rally in charts:

However, Deutsche Bank analysts believe that the next administration, whoever leads it, will be forced to address the fiscal challenge via spending cuts.