It is not widely known that several countries officially use the U.S. dollar as their national currency.

One of those countries is Ecuador.

Experiencing rampant inflation/devaluation and a massive economic and fiscal crisis, Ecuador officially adopted the U.S. dollar as its legal tender in January 2000.

When the “dollarization” was announced, the official fixed conversion rate was 25,000 sucres per US dollar (USD). An exchange rate that had steadily climbed — sometimes not-so-steadily –- from 2 sucres per USD in 1898, to 13 sucres per USD when I was a young boy living in Ecuador in the late 40s, to nearly 12,000 sucres per USD on the eve of dollarization.

Generally, dollarization has significantly benefitted Ecuador’s fiscal situation and its economy.

Some of the key benefits have been the end of hyperinflation; lower interest rates; a modest growth in GDP per capita;; greater monetary, economic, and financial stability; a significant increase in the minimum wage, especially “a remarkable and sustained reduction in poverty.”

On the 25th anniversary of Ecuador’s dollarization, in an interview with the Ecuadorian newspaper El Espreso, currency expert Steve Hanke tells the newspaper, “Overall, Ecuador’s dollarization has worked very well. It is the longest-lived currency regime in Ecuador’s history. It has produced the longest period of economic stability in Ecuador’s history. “

A year later, Gabriela Calderon de Burgos writes at El Universo:

Since adopting the dollar on January 9, 2000, the country has enjoyed the longest period of monetary stability in its republican history. Ecuador’s dollarization is a success story little known outside the country and little appreciated within it: economic stability coexisting with high political volatility.

There have been some drawbacks. Among them:

The loss of “seigniorage.” Essentially the loss of the profit Ecuador or its central bank would make from printing money or minting coins — from “creating money.”

Related to this is a certain loss of (financial) sovereignty, “effectively relinquishing control of its monetary policy to the U.S. Federal Reserve,” as Sonia A. Carpio Vinueza writes in “Impact of Dollarization in Ecuador’s Economic Performance.”

There is also the “cost of cash”: Buying and importing physical U.S. bank notes and minting its own centavo coin. More on coins later.

Perhaps the greatest drawback, in this author’s opinion, is what could be described as an unforeseen, certainly unintended — yet very serious – consequence: The dramatic increase in drug cartels, drug trafficking, and associated crime and violence in a country that traditionally was one of the safest and most peaceful in the Southern Hemisphere.

Ecuador does not produce cocaine. However, located between two of the world’s top cocaine producers, Colombia and Peru, dollarization has been a factor in turning Ecuador into “an international hub in the global drug trade.”

Existing ports and facilities for the export of petroleum, bananas, shrimp, etc. are now also used as “export platforms” by transnational drug cartels.

Without exchange barriers, dollarization has facilitated the flow of funds between drug producers, exporters and consumers and improved the liquidity of funds making it extremely easy to launder illicit assets.

However, the United States is vigorously helping Ecuador in its fight against drug cartels through joint military operations, intelligence sharing, and advisory support.

Now, finally, to the Sacagawea Dollar

While El Banco Central de Ecuador (the Central Bank of Ecuador) physically imported billions of U.S. Federal Reserve dollar bank notes directly from the U.S. during the dollarization process, it was a different story with coins.

Because it would have been prohibitively expensive to fly tons of U.S. coins from the United States, Ecuador decided to mint its own coins, except for the dollar coin.

The Ecuadorean coins are minted in the same denominations as U.S. coins and are called centavos (de dólar) de Ecuador. However, they only have value inside Ecuador. U.S. coins circulate freely and abundantly alongside the centavo coins.

Ecuador stuck with the U.S. dollar coin: the Presidential dollar coins and the Sacagawea dollar coin.

Approximately 150 million of these coins -– most of them Sacagawea dollars — were shipped to Ecuador between 2002 and 2017. The Sacagawea dollar began to be minted in the U.S. in 2000, became extremely popular in Ecuador, and continues to be used in cash transactions.

The Sacagawea dollar – minted until 2008 – is a golden color coin featuring Sacagawea carrying her infant son on the front, and a soaring eagle on the back.

Sacagawea* was a member of the Native American Lemhi Shoshone tribe. As a guide and interpreter, she played an important role in the 18th century Lewis and Clark expedition. Her image resembles that of an Ecuadorean Indian woman, perhaps one reason for the coin’s popularity in Ecuador.

An excellent March 2017 Miami Herald article by Jim Wyss, “Where did all the Sacagawea dollar coins go? In Ecuador…” explains the popularity of the Sacagawea dollar in Ecuador.

==

* To learn more about Sacagawea, please click here.

The post What Do the U.S. Dollar, Ecuador, and the Sacagawea Dollar Have in Common? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The post Immigration appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has issued new grant guidelines that threaten to withhold counterterrorism funds from states that do not comply with President Donald Trump’s election security directives.

The agency told states they must “reconcile the number of voters who voted in federal elections with the number of ballots cast. They must use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship of everyone in the state’s voter registration database.” States also have to verify the citizenship status of poll workers or anyone operating election systems.

The SAVE database helps government agencies “determine citizenship and immigration status of individuals within their jurisdiction for the purpose of granting benefits, licenses, as well as for other lawful purposes.” For states that comply, the database allows the federal government to review the citizenship of everyone registered to vote. It also enables the government to determine which state residents are allowed to vote, a power the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states.

The funds FEMA threatened to withhold for noncompliance would otherwise be used by state and local governments to pay for cybersecurity, emergency planning, training and equipment.

As someone who has studied the interplay of law and politics, I recognize the important role federal grants play in state funding and the legal standards that govern the establishment of conditions like those announced by FEMA.

Federal funding for local governments

In the federal system, states and localities rely on the federal government for a wide range of grants and other funding. In any one year, they amount to more than US$1 trillion and provide between one-quarter and one-third of state and local revenues.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona and Montana are most dependent on revenues from the federal government. They get about 30% of the money they need to run their governments from Washington, D.C.

California, Connecticut and New York are less dependent on federal funding. Nonetheless, they each get more than 20% of their revenue from the federal government.

That is why threats to withhold federal funding have real bite. However, such threats from previous administrations have been targeted and rare.

In 2014, law scholar Eloise Pasachoff identified arguments scholars use to explain federal agencies’ reluctance to cut off funds. Agencies worry that withholding funds will “undermine the agency’s ultimate goals.” In addition, she notes that “political dynamics among state governments, Congress, the White House, and the agencies themselves make funding cut-offs difficult to achieve.”

But that long-standing reluctance seems to have changed after Trump returned to the Oval Office. Since then, the cancellation of funds, or threats to do so, for disfavored places or programs have become commonplace.

A week into the president’s second term, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget issued a memo that temporarily froze federal assistance and grants to all states, including funding that supports nursing homes and hospitals. Some of that funding has been restored after courts intervened.

A January 2026 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called these threats to withhold funds “extraordinary and politically motivated.” The report said they are designed “to punish residents of states President Trump considers political enemies or who disagree with the President, particularly on immigration enforcement.”

The center argued that “the Administration’s actions poison the long-standing, productive, and necessary partnership with states, local governments, and nonprofits to provide critical services that people in every state depend on.”

What the law allows

In 1988, law scholar Jeffrey S. Koppelmaa pointed out that federal funding cutoffs undermine the autonomy of states even as they help Congress ensure that those funds are spent for “the general welfare.”

The previous year, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed that tension in South Dakota v. Dole. The case involved congressional legislation that “ordered the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age.” In South Dakota, state law permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol.

The court found that the imposed condition was reasonable because it was related to highway safety. However, it noted that the authority to impose conditions was not unlimited.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that “the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of ‘the general welfare.’” He wrote that “if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it ‘must do so unambiguously … enabling the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.’”

Rehnquist wrote that the government cannot impose conditions on federal grants if they “‘might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’”

In 2012, the court used the Dole test to strike down a provision of the Affordable Care Act that required states to expand their Medicaid programs and threatened to revoke the entire federal Medicaid funding if any state did not comply. It labeled such a condition “coercive” because of the impact such cuts would have on the entire budget of such a state.

Chief Justice John Roberts put it this way: “The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget … is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.”

The Dole decision is still the law. But even so, some commentators argue that when executive branch agencies rather than Congress impose conditions on federal funds, courts should give these cases special scrutiny.

The FEMA threat

In August 2025 a federal district court stopped the Trump administration from “withholding or freezing federal funding from, or putting conditions on, municipalities and counties it labels as so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions,’” or places that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The court stopped the administration’s efforts to punish those jurisdictions “by using unrelated federal funding as leverage to enforce unlawful immigration policy.”

In June 2026 a federal judge in New Jersey followed similar logic in a case involving the Trump administration’s effort to stop funding for a $16 billion rail tunnel under the Hudson River. The complaint in that case had described those attempts as illegal and argued that “the Federal Government suddenly suspend(ed) the Project … because President Trump is engaged in political retribution.”

The federal judge seemed to agree, citing Trump interviews where he pointed out, “It’s billions and billions of dollars that (Sen. Chuck) Schumer has worked 20 years to get. It’s terminated. Tell him it terminated.’”

She ordered the funds restored.

That brings us back to FEMA’s recent threat. Congressional Democrats quickly denounced it as “potentially unlawful.”

They wrote: “As we approach the 25th anniversary of September 11th, it is deeply alarming that DHS and FEMA, under Donald Trump, continue to manipulate the very funding born out of a national tragedy.” They accused the agencies of “playing political games.”

Whether courts will agree remains to be seen.

Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

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

The post Is withholding federal counterterrorism funds from states –as FEMA has threatened — legal? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

UPDATE:

A great video on shibboleths here.

Original Post:

While living in Belgium in the early nineties we often visited the charming, picturesque town of Sluis, the Netherlands, situated right on the Belgian border.

We would enjoy its historic sites, buzzling markets, lively shopping and, especially, its culinary treasures.

But I would also (secretly and sometimes not-so-secretly) have fun with my English American wife’s (mis)pronunciation of the name Sluis.

According to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), the Dutch word “sluis” (which means a lock in a canal used for raising or lowering boats to a higher or lower part of the canal) is pronounced as /slœy?s/.

Crystal clear now?

Talkpal AI describes it as follows:

Phonetically, the “ui” sound in Dutch …begins with a rounded front vowel like the French “œ” in “œuf,” gliding towards a close front rounded vowel akin to the German “ü” in “für.” The sound is a diphthong, meaning it transitions smoothly between two vowel qualities within the same syllable.

Others just give up entirely and suggest “slouse” or even “sloose.” The former most closely resembling my wife’s pronunciation.

In this author’s opinion, no phonetic representation can accurately capture the correct pronunciation of Sluis (and of so many other Dutch words.) To truly appreciate (hear) the correct pronunciation of this word please listen to the Wiktionary audio file for sluis here.

Since Dutch (Nederlands) and English are West Germanic languages, since Dutch grammar is not as difficult as, say, German grammar, and since English and Dutch share some similarities in vocabulary, it should be relatively easy for English-speakers to learn Dutch.

And generally it is — except for the pronunciation of “a few” words.

A pronunciation that is notoriously difficult because Dutch abounds with guttural, “throaty” ‘g’ and ‘ch’ sounds, such as in geld (money) and in prachtig (beautiful), respectively. Also, because of frequent complex consonant clusters, such as in angstschreeuw (scream of fear). This one boasting eight consonants in a row), in addition to the “elongated vowel glide” ‘eeu’ that one finds in words such as eeuw (century).

For those looking to truly exercise their throat, tongue and lip muscles, there are plenty of long compound words that exhibit several of the above characteristics. Words such as Eeuwigheidszondag (Eternity Sunday), nieuwsgierig (curious) and, how about uitgeversmaatschappij (publishing house) or arbeidsongeschiktheidsuitkering (disability benefit).

One letter combination that is especially difficult to pronounce for non-native speakers is ‘sch.’ It requires sliding smoothly from a sharp ‘s’ hiss directly into the guttural ‘ch’ throat sound. The latter sound, ‘ch,’ has been described by linguistics as “a voiceless uvular fricative.”

Although German is also a “guttural,” “harsh” language, Germans struggle with this pronunciation because, in German, the initial ‘sch’ is pronounced as the English-like ‘sh’ sound, such as in Schnitzel and in Schatz (treasure).

One such word is Scheveningen, the name of a popular Dutch seaside resort, just West of The Hague (formally known as ‘s-Gravenhage).

The story goes that during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in World War II, the Dutch would use the word Scheveningen as a shibboleth, a password, to identify German spies, imposters, and infiltrators in their midst.

Watch the YouTube video “Soldaat van Oranje” (“Soldier of Orange”**) where – at minute 1:28 – two Dutch young men who want to join the Resistance are challenged with the password Scheveningen to make sure they are not “moffen.” Moffen is a derogatory term for Germans, used especially during World War II and in its aftermath, stemming from an intense national resentment over the brutal Nazi occupation of the Netherlands.

** Oranje (Orange) is the the Dutch national color honoring the ruling Dutch royal family, the House of Oranje-Nassau.

The post How a Dutch Name Became a <em>Shibboleth</em> During World War II appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

President Donald Trump warned Tuesday that Iran “hasn’t seen anything yet” as he defended U.S. military operations against Tehran, saying the country would need decades to recover from what he described as damage from American strikes.

Speaking to reporters during the meeting, Trump said Iran had been “degraded” and that the United States had significantly damaged the country’s military capabilities.

“It would take 20 to 25 years” for Iran to rebuild, Trump said, adding that even if the United States were to withdraw immediately (a move he said would not happen) Iran would still face decades of recovery.

Trump reiterated that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon” and criticized the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated during former President Barack Obama’s administration, arguing that the deal contributed to the current crisis. Trump also referred to Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama” while discussing the agreement and argued that the former president’s nuclear deal helped create the conditions that led to the current conflict.

“If I didn’t terminate that deal, Israel wouldn’t exist,” Trump said, adding that in his view, several other countries would also have faced existential threats.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth joined Trump during the appearance and compared Iran’s nuclear ambitions to North Korea’s development of weapons capabilities. Hegseth said Iran had been given “every opportunity to negotiate” and argued that Trump was the only president willing to directly confront Tehran.

“Every night we degrade them further and further,” Hegseth said.

Trump also said that U.S. forces had prevented attacks from reaching their targets, saying “no one got through the blockade” and comparing it to “a steel wall.” He said the United States had “the best equipment in the world” and that American forces had “stopped almost everything.”

Throughout the appearance, Trump criticized media coverage of his administration’s foreign policy and argued that certain accomplishments had not received sufficient attention.

Trump cited casualties in Iran, saying, “They are killing over 52,000 people, no one talks about it.” He did not provide additional details or a source for the figure during the press conference.

Trump also referenced previous U.S. military actions, saying that the United States had gone to war with Venezuela and that the conflict “lasted one day.” He said the administration had achieved successes that he believed were overlooked by the media.

Later in the press conference, Trump was asked about attacks targeting a federal building in New York City that involved ICE. Trump said his administration had removed thousands of people with criminal records and repeated a statistic that “2 percent of the people cause 91 percent of the crime.” He did not provide evidence for the figure during the exchange.

Trump returned repeatedly to the message that the United States’ campaign against Iran was ongoing, saying the country had “been given every opportunity” and warning that Iran had not yet experienced the full extent of U.S. action.

ID 450212372 | Iran Us Flag © Karenr | Dreamstime.com

The post Trump Says Iran “Hasn’t Seen Anything Yet” During Meeting With Lebanon’s President appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

UPDATE:

On Monday, after threatening to slap tariffs on Canada because of the country’s (mis)handling of the wildfires, Trump imposed an additional 50 percent tariff on certain Canadian goods (ranging from “wine to hockey sticks to cement,”) in response to alleged “discriminatory” trade measures by Canada. Apparently, the new tariffs are unrelated to the fires, albeit “Trump has been given options on the wildfire tariffs.” (The Hill)

Original Post:

Whenever a major natural disaster strikes the Unites States, our neighbor to the North responds generously, swiftly and effectively — no questions asked, no conditions set, no disagreements recalled, no recriminations voiced, no threats made.

Whether responding to major wildfires, hurricanes or floods, Canada has immediately and consistently deployed emergency responders, medical teams and military personnel across the border, in addition to specialized aircraft, vessels and equipment.

Just some recent examples:

• During the devastating 2000 wildfire season when nearly seven million acres of land and forests burned from Texas to Montana, more than 1,300 Canadian personnel were dispatched to the U.S. to help fight fires.

• Again, during the 2020 California wildfires, hundreds of Canadian firefighters deployed to California to assist in fighting them.

• Most recently, in January 2025, Canadian firefighters once again worked shoulder to shoulder with their American counterparts to fight and suppress the devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. Air tankers from Quebec and crews from Alberta and British Columbia assisted in the fight.

More significant, more consequential, is how Canada, almost instinctively, came to help the United States after the 9/11 terror attacks.

In addition to numerous humanitarian, diplomatic, security and short-term military actions, our neighbor became one of our staunchest allies and supporters during the 12-year war in Afghanistan — a war that became Canada’s longest war and where more than 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members served, 158 of them never to return home.

Today, as hundreds of wildfires are raging across Canada –- nearly 200 of them blazing across the province of Ontario alone -– heavy smoke from the fires is drifting across the north-eastern U.S. affecting air quality, causing discomfort and posing potential health hazards.

As it always has, the United States is helping our neighbor in this time of crisis. However, such help is not being rendered without an unhealthy dose of recrimination, assigning blame and plain pettiness.

In a Truth Social post on Friday, , President Trump accused Canada of “willful Negligence” because, allegedly, they are not properly maintaining their forests.

Readers will remember how Trump, while surveying the devastating 2018 Palisades, California, wildfires, citing a conversation with his Finnish counterpart, suggested that the U.S. could prevent catastrophic forest fires by “raking and cleaning” the forest floors.

While judicious forest management – not just “raking forest floors” – and land use are important, a large number of scientific studies have shown that climate change is driving an increase in the frequency and severity of the type of weather likely to lead to fires; that there is “an ‘unequivocal and pervasive’ role for global heating in boosting the conditions for fire.”

It is well-known how dismissive the Trump administration is over man-made climate change, a reality Trump referred to as a “con job” in a 2025 speech to the United Nations.

Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada did not immediately address the accusations on Friday, but he suggested that the United States should do more to combat climate change.

Adding (potential) injury to insult, Trump continued on Truth Social that such willful negligence is “becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars, which cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.”

It is not clear that he has the legal authority to impose such a “TARIFF.”

It is common knowledge that Trump has a combative (retributory) relationship with our neighbor to the north, colored by his political, ideological and personal grievances and ambitions, including his oft-repeated, deranged wish to make Canada our 51st state. The Huffington Post describes it as his “personal obsession with alienating Canada, a fellow member of NATO and one of the country’s most steadfast allies for decades before Trump’s second term.”

We should not be surprised at Trump’s reaction to Canada in that nation’s time of need. We have all-too-often seen how his political grievances and differences, partisanship, and personal grudges have negatively affected disaster policies and relief efforts towards our own blue states.

The Washington State and California wildfires, Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, among other examples. should ring a bell.

Equally ignominious has been the rush by MAGA Republicans to pile on with baseless accusations, harangues, and unbecoming threats.

Although shocked and offended, Canada’s government officials have largely stayed above the fray with perhaps the strongest response coming from Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford. He called Trump’s tariff threats “absolutely unacceptable,” and asked American lawmakers to “send support” rather than complain, poignantly referring to these politicians as having “a very short, short memory.”

Others have been more direct.

Replying to Senator Bernie Moreno’s (R-Ohio) pledge to introduce a bill to sanction Canadian officials found “responsible” for the fires, Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization, said:

The false rhetoric about the cause of wildfires is not constructive. It helps to further underscore the sense Canadians have that the U.S. has lost its way…When California was burning last year, we didn’t try to pass laws falsely blaming the U.S. for fires. We sent water bombers, airplanes that drop water on fires, and teams that helped to put out the fires.

The cloud of acrid smoke is now beginning to clear over the U.S., but a darker, more toxic cloud continues to shroud the relations of two peoples with so much in common, of two nations traditionally joined at the hip.

The post Canada’s Wildfires: Fighting Fire with Pettiness (Update) appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

President Donald Trump’s obsession with unfounded claims of election fraud has defined his second term in office. But in recent months his fixation has moved from executive nominee litmus tests and executive orders reinforcing proof of citizenship to vote into legislation – dragging Congress into the fray.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, featured heavily in Trump’s primetime speech on July 16, 2026.

It’s become the focus of the administration in recent months, eclipsing prior legislative efforts by proposing stringent and widespread voting changes. The proposed law, which would federalize elections, require additional documentation in order to vote and curtail mail-in registration and ballots in all states, faces major logistical, legal and political hurdles.

The act, which is stuck in limbo between the U.S. House and Senate, has dominated and derailed the summer’s legislative calendar. In the House, Republican members delayed votes on major legislation in an effort to pressure the Senate to take the bill up for a vote, and it has become a sticking point in other unrelated legislation.

The controversial act has also soured the relationship between Trump and members of his party, leading him to refuse to sign a bipartisan housing bill passed by Congress. Although the bill became law without his signature, Trump’s preoccupation with the SAVE America Act ultimately denied congressional Republicans an opportunity to tout a bipartisan, popular policy win.

Yet, despite mounting political pressure, Congress hasn’t budged.

This tension between Trump’s priorities and congressional inaction is noteworthy because Republicans control both chambers. But as a political scientist who studies the evolving power of congressional leadership, I find inaction on the SAVE America Act to be more than a reflection of Trump’s waning popularity among Republican lawmakers. Rather, congressional hesitation on what would be the largest election reform in decades reflects an awareness of constituent needs and lawmakers’ own reelection risks.

What’s the latest?

House Republicans have been quick to blame the Senate – and the 60-vote filibuster threshold the legislation must overcome to receive a vote on the Senate floor – for the inaction.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has brought the legislation to the floor for at least three votes in an effort to pressure the Senate to take up the legislation. In July 2026, Johnson took a more creative approach, relenting to conservative lawmakers by including portions of the SAVE America Act in a House-passed bill to fund the State Department.

These actions are largely theatrical. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said since February 2026 that there aren’t enough votes to move the SAVE America Act through the Senate, telling Fox News in June that “the votes currently aren’t there.” Although Senate Republicans could vote to remove the filibuster, which Trump has also requested, they have not.

Even in the House, the slim margins of Republican control have made it challenging for Johnson to keep the party together on the controversial issue. And Johnson’s gambit to attach the SAVE America Act to important legislation risks not only derailing bipartisan policy but another government shutdown, too.

If Republicans were serious about electoral reform, including moderate reforms that the majority of Americans do support, their approach would be like that used for other major legislation: bipartisan. Instead, partisan passage of a controversial bill, with a known Senate blockade, presents half-hearted strategy that avoids true responsibility.

Legal and logistical hurdles

The SAVE America Act would be confusing, time-consuming and expensive, and it would not provide funding to help states implement changes.

Changing election processes warrants precision and time, too. As Republican Sen. Thom Tillis noted, “Do you honestly believe that we can have this thing up in 50 states? There’s no funding. There’s no specific implementation instructions.”

Beyond logistics, the legality of federalizing election processes is murky.

Congress does have the power to mandate election requirements. But under Article 1, Section 4, of the Constitution, while Congress can outline parameters, states are responsible for election administration.

For example, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 reinforced citizenship as a requirement, but states maintained responsibility for creating their own form and enrollment process. The SAVE America Act attempts to circumvent this by requiring federal possession of voter rolls.

Uncertainty for American citizens

Beyond legal challenges, the SAVE America Act introduces very real implications for American voters – and the members of Congress who represent them.

While the act’s stated goal is to ensure only citizens vote, citizenship requirements for voting are already federal law. In practice, many scholars believe the bill would make it more difficult for eligible voters to engage in the democratic process.

For rural Americans, most of whom are represented by Republican members of Congress, the act would sharply restrict mail-in registration and mail-in voting. More than 5 million Americans would need to drive an hour or more to register to vote, with some voters facing drives as long as eight hours.

For women who changed their name after marriage, a trait more likely to be associated with Republican women, voting would require marriage certificates in addition to birth certificates.

First-time voters, young voters on college campuses and voters who have recently moved could also face the hurdle of finding and presenting this documentation in person.

Members of Congress, particularly those who represent rural areas, are likely aware of this reality. Disenfranchising or, at best, confusing their voters risks their own electoral success, too.

Safety and security of upcoming elections

One of Trump’s first acts following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter in June 2026, which allowed the president to remove executive branch officials without cause, was to fire the remaining members of the bipartisan, Senate-confirmed Election Assistance Commission.

The agency is the point of contact for states regarding election administration processes, offering resources, guidance and expertise on voting logistics. If the SAVE America Act were to pass, this office would be integral to ensuring changes are unbiased and fair across all 50 states.

Coupled with warnings that Trump may invoke emergency powers over election administration, aggressive actions by the Department of Justice to control voter rolls, partisan redistricting, and now a vacated election commission, the SAVE America Act risks further disrupting elections. All while these elections have already been secure and overwhelmingly free of fraud.

As Tillis noted to reporters, “They’re being disingenuous to suggest to the American people they could possibly be operational by this election. And so then it begins to make me wonder … if we’re just beginning to undermine the underlying integrity of any of our elections. And I think that’s dangerous, and I think it’s wrong.”

Trump’s grip on Republicans

Does Congress’ hesitation to pass the SAVE America Act reflect a weakened Trump grip on the Republican party? Possibly. The president is more unpopular than he has been at any point during his second term. Ignoring Trump on the SAVE America Act may be a risk worth taking to some members.

But for most Republican members of Congress, appeasing Trump remains key to primary and electoral success. The president’s record on primary endorsements – even for Senate incumbents – remains strong, as he continues to define the party. Among constituents, some provisions of the SAVE America Act are popular among MAGA-aligned voters, making it an important electoral issue for members representing deep-red districts.

By publicly supporting the act, but relying on the Senate to serve as a doorstop to House-passed legislation, Congress falls into a familiar pattern that allows conservative members to appeal to the president while using procedure to block legislation that would make major changes to voting, mere months from Election Day.

Congress’ hesitance to pass the SAVE America Act is more than a test of its relationship with Trump. It’s an example of Congress doing what it was intended to do: represent its constituents.

SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Politics, University of Virginia

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

The post Republicans control Congress, so why is Trump’s SAVE America Act stuck? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Trump said it would never happen. The war with Iran would be short and over quickly. But it stops and starts, is over and begins again. No matter how much the U.S. bombs, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz with drones. And that means the price of oil and gasoline remains high.

Of course, America could destroy Iran’s oil industry, factories, desalinization plants, and entire economy. But Iran could still dominate the Strait of Hormuz and 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. It seems strange that President Trump and our top military brass appeared unaware of Iran’s ability to prevent ships from passage in the Strait of Hormuz. But we had made no plans to counter Iran’s control of the Strait. And our negotiations with Iran to end the war are stymied by the future of the Strait, Iran’s nuclear materials and support for its proxy forces.
Discussions with Iran about a permanent end to the war seem to go on and on with a Memorandum of Understanding that means nothing. As of early June, no solution had been devised to end the conflict, with intermittent attacks by both sides. It appeared as if a stalemate had occurred, with both sides claiming victory. Iran’s Revolutionary guards needed the U.S. as an enemy, giving them a reason for being. Trump kept saying that the conflict would end soon with a peace treaty signed, but nothing happened. After a U.S. helicopter was shot down by Iran in mid-June, Trump resumed the bombing, threatening more barrages. Then he suddenly called them off again claiming a deal was imminent. The world waited, wondering if Trump’s words meant anything. No matter what happened, Iran would be able to control the Strait. Was it possible the war would end in a tie, or even a victory for Iran? We should keep in mind that Trump had originally asked for unconditional surrender from Iran, giving up its nuclear material, opening the Strait, regime change, and to stop building long-range missiles. Based on those terms, Trump achieved nothing from the conflict.

Some analysts believed Iran had actually won the war because of their newfound control of the Strait. At some point, it was likely that Iran would charge tolls for passage through the Strait. and resolve all the other outstanding issues. But it was possible that Iran might demand too much, particularly in terms of their nuclear development and funding to rebuild all that had been destroyed. While the Gulf nations might pay Iran most of the necessary funds, the nuclear issue still had to be resolved.
The MoU and ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. was made public on June 19, 2026. Analysts reviewing the documents agreed for the most part that Iran had won, with Trump giving away the store. For simply agreeing to start negotiations on its nuclear program and temporarily opening the Strait without tolls, Trump ended the blockade on Iran’s ports, stopped the bombing, allowed Iran to trade its oil, worked towards dropping all sanctions, and committed to helping Iran acquire $300 billion to rebuild. Trump must have forgotten his art of the deal. An article by Hussein Banai in June 2026 Foreign Affairs noted that the cease-fire with Iran was a stalemate. And he believed this was the best that America would be able to do.

It’s clear that Trump has failed to achieve the goals he put forward for this war of choice. The reality is that the war will end with the regime in Teheran intact and in the grip of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: the Strait of Hormuz will remain under threat of Iranian attacks; Iran will continue to possess significant drone and missile stocks; the regime will maintain the capability to be a state sponsor of terror; many sanctions will be lifted and billions of dollars in unfrozen assets will flow to Iran. In other words, the Iranians have achieved their key strategic aims- regime survival above all- while the Americans have achieved none of theirs. The war leaves Iran battered, but more powerful and with more cash at its disposal, while it leaves America weaker.
Trump’s handling of the war along with his chosen advisors points out the incompetence of the top layers of our government. There were no strategic plans to handle various contingencies, and Trump was not smart enough to deal with matters on the fly. Trump has been anxious for a settlement, knowing that the American people had been overwhelmingly against the war, and Iran is aware of that. An analyst noted that once Iran had shown its ability to control the Strait and Trump’s unwillingness to use American ground troops to dislodge them, the war was over with Iran winning. Trump would follow with further concessions to Iran, the only question being the timing and the sweetener for Trump that Iran would have to add. But however it was presented to the American public, Iran had won the war with the revolutionary regime remaining in place and Trump conceding money to Iran even before the negotiations started. The final deal will harm America’s interests for decades. It may be our worse strategic defeat ever.

The MOU did not stop Iran from targeting ships in the Strait again and America restarted its bombing campaign in mid-July, blockading Iran’s ports as well. The hot war was on again. With the war having resumed, intelligence officials predicted that the Pentagon’s funding for the Iran conflict would surpass $100 billion. www.robertlevinebooks.com

The post America’s Off and On Forever War with Iran appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

An attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles and drones killed two U.S. service members and left another missing at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Azraq, Jordan, according to U.S. officials. Unidentified remains were later recovered at the site, with identification efforts ongoing.

Several other American troops were treated for injuries following the attack. The strike represents a major escalation as U.S. forces continue operations against Iran and Iranian-backed targets across the region.

The deaths brought the number of U.S. military personnel killed in the conflict with Iran to at least 16, while more than 400 others have been injured since the start of the fighting.

The Defense Secretary said in a statement that the fallen service members’ “sacrifice only stiffens our resolve.”

President Donald Trump described the casualties as “a very sad thing,” adding, “We hate to see it happen. It’s in service to our country.”

The attack also comes after President Trump said on multiple occasions that Iran’s military capabilities had been significantly weakened or destroyed during the conflict. Despite those assertions, Iranian forces have continued launching missile and drone attacks against U.S. and allied targets, including the strike on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base.

The deaths are likely to increase pressure on the Trump administration as it considers its response. U.S. officials face the challenge of deterring further attacks against American forces while attempting to avoid a wider regional war.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned the United States that continued attacks would bring “unforgettable lessons,” according to remarks broadcast on Iranian state television. Khamenei also criticized President Trump’s signature on a memorandum of understanding, calling it “worthless and invalid,” and vowed a forceful response.

The latest escalation comes as fighting has increasingly centered on the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important waterway for global energy shipments. Any prolonged disruption in the region could have significant consequences for international trade and energy markets.

ID 186078743 | Breaking News ©
Prostockstudio | Dreamstime.com

The post Two U.S. Troops Killed as Iranian Strike on Jordan Base Escalates Conflict appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Unfolding in real time: Donald Trump’s relentless attack on liberal norms, principles, the rule of law and election integrity. With each new step, Fox News repeats and reinforces Trump’s assertions and actions, and many people will discard their past principles and positions with breathtaking speed and not look back. The key question: despite some pushback is Trump succeeding? For those opposing Trump is it one step forward then three steps back?

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol:

It’s sometimes painful, but surely important to see things as they really are. The last couple of weeks in American politics have been helpful in that respect. They’ve made it harder to miss seeing the stunning depth and breadth of the Trump administration’s illiberalism.

Actually, “illiberalism” is too mild. As Robert Kagan has explained, what we’re seeing is not so much illiberalism as anti-liberalism. It’s not that Trumpists don’t quite understand the case for liberalism, or that they’ve unwittingly deviated from liberal norms or principles. It’s a frontal assault on liberalism in the broad sense of the word—on democracy, on the rule of law, on civil and political liberties, on limited government, on pluralism, on honesty and decency. That assault has been purposeful. It now spreads across the entire Trump administration and permeates its ranks. For all of Trump’s erraticness and unpredictability, for all of his administration’s misfires and clownishness and zigs and zags, Trumpism has an animating spirit, and the Trump administration has a coherent project.

And:

As Orwell famously wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The speech will claim to be based on new “intelligence” assembled by Bill Pulte, Trump’s current acting director of national intelligence. And it’s part of a series of claims Trump has been making of widespread rigging of elections in the United States—not just of the 2020 contest. All of this is, in turn, undergirds a broad-based effort by his administration to lay the groundwork for an attempt to subvert free and fair elections in 2026 and especially in 2028, and if necessary for not abiding by the results.

It was also yesterday that Trump reversed the announcement by his Department of Homeland Security that it would suspend most vehicle stops in light of the killings of innocent men by government agents within the last week. Trump was caught unaware by the decision, and immediately overturned it. “We CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!” the president wrote. Trump cares more about maintaining the all-out assault on immigrants than even pretending to make obviously reasonable reforms. Meanwhile, an unprecedented number of individuals are not just being killed on the streets by ICE but are dying in ICE’s custody.

The more one looks at the mass deportation agenda and the fervor of its embrace by Trump and Trumpists, the more one is reminded of Umberto Eco’s observation in his great 1995 essay, “Ur-Fascism”:

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism….

…And one can easily look beyond DOJ and ODNI and DHS for evidence of the assault on liberal norms and principles. From the weightiest matters, such as Trump’s renewed threat to commit possible war crimes by targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, to the more symbolic ones, like the attempt to reshape the history told in our national parks and the Smithsonian, the assault on liberalism is a whole-of-government effort.

Dare one apply to that project Eco’s term, Ur-Fascism? It can sound extreme or overwrought. But read Eco’s essay. And look at the Trump administration, with its assortment of diligent apparatchiks, crazed fanatics, eager enablers, slimy opportunists, and, yes, performative clowns pushing more or less in the same direction. Look at the spirit of the political movement that impels it. This is in fact what many fascist and proto-fascist governments and movements have looked like. Trumpism looks and sounds and behaves like ur-fascism. It can be unpleasant to see things for what they are. But it’s important to do so.

ID 132344517 | Donald Trump ©
Ginettigino | Dreamstime.com

The post TRUMP’S RELENTLESS ATTACK ON LIBERAL NORMS, PRINCIPLES AND DEMOCRACY appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

There’s an old saying that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Lindsey Graham died scratching.

I’m not celebrating Graham’s passing – I’ll leave that to the lefty ghouls on social media – but nor will I whitewash his detestable sins just because he’s gone. The D.C. establishment is predictably busy conferring retroactive sainthood, which makes it all the more imperative that the sad and tragic truth be told.

Every aspiring fascist needs a simpering flunky. Donald Trump, with his uncanny ability to exploit human weakness, got his man.

Trump correctly intuited Graham would sacrifice everything – integrity, credibility, character, the semblance of a conscience – just to be in the room where it happened. Even if the room was overrun by a convicted felon who represented everything that Lindsey, once upon a time, claimed to loathe.

Ten long years ago, Lindsey was in relentlessly high dudgeon about the lowlife. He assailed Trump as “a nutjob,” as “a complete idiot,” as a “jackass,” as “crazy,” as “a race-baiting xenophobic bigot,” as “a demagogue of the highest order.” He said, “You know how to make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”

He also denounced Trump as “a kook” who was “unfit for office.” And yet, one year later, after Trump’s first electoral win, Lindsey effectuated a gymnastic twist worthy of the Olympics: “What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy some kind of kook not fit to be president.”

Graham’s pathetic subservience was endless – to the point where he trekked to Georgia at Trump’s command in December 2020 to baselessly contest Joe Biden’s statewide victory, pressuring state election officials (without success) to throw out some of the legal ballots. And despite his initial anger about the Jan. 6 desecration of the Capitol by MAGA goons, he predictably voted to acquit his alpha dog in the subsequent impeachment trial.

Look again at Lindsey’s string of scathing 2016 remarks, and the conclusion is inescapable: He knew perfectly well who and what Trump was, but he chose to play the toady and reverse-engineer his rhetoric. “Mr. President,” he said in 2024, “you’re not far behind God.”

You surely know for years Lindsey played “wingman” (his word) to John McCain, a heavy hitter and inveterate Trump foe. You may not know, however, that after Barack Obama ascended to the White House in 2008, Lindsey morphed into a groupie. He praised Obama as “a good role model” and “an American just as much as anyone else.” He took heat from right-wingers who called him “Obama Lite” and “Flimsy Graham.” Tommy Vietor, an Obama aide, later tweeted, “When Obama first took office, (Lindsey) lived in Rahm Emanuel’s office,” referring to Obama’s first chief of staff. “He has no core beliefs. He just drifts in the political wind.”

Obama, McCain, Trump…What’s the difference. Lindsey was remarkably nimble-footed. A Republican operative told me privately, “He started drifting toward Trump when McCain got sick.”

Lindsey saw nothing wrong with shifting his loyalty. He told a reporter in 2019 that his main motivation was “to try to be relevant.” And if that meant sucking up to the grifter who loved to trash McCain’s memory, hey, no problem because everything was grist for sacrifice at the relevance altar. Lindsey admitted to a reporter he didn’t like Trump’s trashing of McCain, “ but when we play golf, it’s fun.”

Fun for him, yes. Not fun for the Americans who’ve been hurt by his subservience to evil – starting with the millions of women who’ve now been denied autonomy over their own bodies, thanks in part to Lindsey’s vocal championing of Brett Kavanaugh, at Trump’s behest, for the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also millions of needy people who will lose Medicaid coverage and food assistance thanks to the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” that Lindsey, at Trump’s behest, steered through the Senate.

Lindsey chose to do all this, chose to serve his MAGA master – in defiance of sage advice that his erstwhile hero McCain co-authored in a book: “It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.”

So excuse me for failing to mourn the man. I’m tempted to joke that he died from an overdose of Trump’s shoe polish, and I suppose that’s in bad taste. But sucking up to the enemy within was infinitely worse.

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com

The post Lacky Lindsey Graham exits stage right appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

In December 2022, I was frantically trying to figure out how to incorporate Chat GPT into my undergraduate technical communication class for engineering students while my more normal friends were blithely unaware of the transformation on the horizon.

A little over two years later, President Donald Trump would announce the Stargate project, a $500 billion public-private AI infrastructure initiative. Its first data center*, with its own power generation, would be built in rural Texas.

Flash forward to July 2026. More than a half million Nashville citizens are objecting to a proposed data center adjacent to the Nashville Zoo. In Utah, Republicans rejected the re-election campaign of state Senate President J. Stuart Adams over his fast-tracking permission for a 40,000-acre hyperscale data center; they also rejected two county commissioners. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has reversed his joy at the state being the “epicenter” of AI infrastructure with the first Stargate project; now he wants to regulate data center growth.

What happened?

AI happened. As of May 20, 2026, the U.S. had 4,286 data centers; there were 11,400 active data centers worldwide. But these data centers are, in the main, “small” — about 100,000 square feet. Hyperscale data centers – the ones citizens are objecting to – can easily exceed 1,000,000 square feet. The reason for the size? Unimaginable growth in AI.

AI demand for computers and electricity is growing at a compounding rate that strains existing infrastructure. According to Energy Policy, “AI electricity demand [is] increasing by 25–35% annually.”

To grasp the scale of investment driving that demand: since OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022, Microsoft, Meta and Google alone have made a $600 billion capital investment, much of it on data centers. Adjusted for inflation, that exceeds the entire cost of the U.S. interstate highway system, according to The Atlantic. “These are the largest single points of consumption of electricity in history,” Jesse Jenkins, a climate modeler at Princeton, told The Atlantic.

As an example of the mind-numbing size of these hyperscale data centers, let’s look more closely at Utah, where Canadian entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary proposed building a data center on 40,000 acres in a rural part of the state (population of 65,000). How big is that? “roughly the size of two Manhattans or about 2,000 Walmart Supercenters.”

Known as the Stratos Project, its energy requirement (they would build a power plant) is “more than double the energy the entire state of Utah uses in a year.”

In early May, Box Elder County commissioners approved the project after escaping an unhappy, local crowd and voting in a back room. There was no environmental impact statement. The facility would obtain water by “re-direct[ing] an existing agricultural water right for industrial use.” That water rights application drew almost 4,000 comments asking for it to be rejected.

A statewide protest led the Governor, via executive order in May, to immediately set a “higher bar for data center development in Utah.” Last month, Stratos announced it would cut the project in half, and it is still moving forward.

Unfortunately, permissive permitting and state competition for business investment have already combined to increase the price of electricity for existing consumers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that in 2024, $4.3 billion in electrical utility costs associated with data centers were passed on to consumers in Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. This is not new power generation. This is how much it cost to simply connect new data centers to the existing power grid.

Local fights are proliferating just as fast as project applications. For example in March, a proposed data center in Appomattox County, Virginia, sparked local opposition. Avio, a Connecticut tech company, wants to build “Project Hercules,” a 452-acre, $3 billion center. Dominion Energy would be tasked with delivering 250 megawatts of electricity and the infrastructure to support it. One megawatt of energy can power 200-670 homes on average.

In northeastern Pennsylvania, Archbald Borough (population 7,000) is “facing the most data center campus proposals of any municipality” in the Commonwealth. The project consists of six data center campuses on acreage that is “slightly smaller than Manhattan” or equivalent to 51 Walmart Supercenters. According to the Washington Post, “most of the seven-person Archbald Borough Council has resigned” due to local pushback, which emphasized power, water and nature (clearcutting trees).

How much power do they use?

By 2028, data centers could consume up to 12% of total electricity in the United States, up from 4.4% in 2023… the equivalent of adding eight New York City’s [sic] to the country.

Hyperscale data centers may generate their own power. Just ask the folks in Mississippi about the high-pitched noise and air pollution associated with massive methane gas turbines sending electricity to Colossus AI data centers in Memphis, which supports Elon Musk properties. The Southern Environmental Law Center has sued the Mississippi plant for Clean Air Act violations. Citizens have also joined together in a class action lawsuit against Elon Musk’s xAI and SpaceX.

Then there’s the demand on the water supply and resultant increases in water bills. In fact, voters polled recently ranked water issues and electric bills as a tie in their list of concerns about hyperscale data centers. Sticking with Colossus AI, The Atlantic reports that according to public records, “the address for Colossus used more than 11 million gallons in September alone, as much as 150 homes use in an entire year.”

Most data centers use water-based, evaporative cooling systems, drawing their supply from local municipalities; in other words, they use potable water. Unlike typical municipal water use, which is recycled through wastewater treatment plants back into the local ecosystem, evaporated water is simply gone — lost to the water cycle entirely.

According to a University of Georgia report, “Larger data centers can each use up to 5 million gallons per day, or about 1.8 billion gallons annually, a usage equivalent to a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people.” Thus citizens reasonably worry about water-use restrictions, “especially during a drought.”

Some large data centers tap into the groundwater with their own wells or through a municipal well. Increased pumping can lower the aquifer groundwater levels, requiring retrofitting of most or all wells in the region. This is particularly worrisome in rural areas where homes have wells and septic systems, not municipal water and sewer, and farms have well-based irrigation systems.

Others pull their water from rivers, lakes or reservoirs, either directly or via municipal sources. These sources, too, are subject to drought restrictions and can yield stress on the aquatic ecosystem. Some farms irrigate their crops using surface water, generating yet another conflict when the resource is stressed.

A rapid approval process can also fail to account for the full impact on state budgets. For example, Georgia is expected to lose $2.5 billion in fiscal 2026 due to data center tax breaks. There are 32 states with tax incentives on a silver platter that could find themselves in a similar shortfall. These tax breaks come despite the paucity of long-term jobs: approximately 150 per data center on average although a large complex like Archbald (six data centers) might employ as many as 900 people.

Taken together, these factors have produced a deeply skeptical public.

There are multiple externalities associated with large data centers. The breadth of these concerns has produced some strange bedfellows. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Gov. Ron DeSantis are allies in the fight against uncontrolled data center growth. Sen. Sanders has introduced a bill, along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), to impose a national moratorium on data center permitting. Gov. DeSantis signed a bill protecting Florida consumers from shouldering the burden of increased electrical bills associated with hyperscale data centers.

One externality that deserves attention is their reliance on fossil fuels as the foundation of their energy generation. In Louisiana, there are plans for three natural gas plants that would be “among the largest in this hemisphere” when complete. The client? Meta.

The International Energy Agency estimates that “data-center emissions could more than double by 2030—becoming one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gases in the world.”

It’s not just the scale of the data centers that has escalated. It’s the number of applications. And the opposition. “Data center opponents have blocked or delayed projects worth nearly $130 billion in 2026,” according to NBC News. That represents 75 projects blocked in the first quarter; that’s as many as were blocked in calendar 2025. Most have not generated national news reports.

Rural America is the new frontier for data center development. According to the Pew Research Center, “87% of existing data centers are in urban areas, but 67% of planned data centers are in rural ones.”

What we are seeing appears to be more than a flash in the pan of opposition.

There are opposition groups in 49 states, twice as many as last year. One message could be: don’t try to build this behind our backs, given the historic lack of transparency.

Turning back to Utah as an example of persistence, residents in rural Box Elder County are appealing a ruling that they cannot put a resolution on the November ballot opposing the Stratos Project.

Then there’s Gov. Abbott of Texas this month:

“Any AI data [center] even thinking about coming here, they got to bring their own money, bring their own power, reuse their own water, and do it in a way that reduces the cost of electricity for residents across our state,” Abbott said. “We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods, and we must eliminate the tax break they are getting.”

An opposition movement that began in zoning board meetings and online petitions has become something more durable: a bipartisan political force reshaping elections, state budgets and the AI regulatory landscape. The federal government is all in, just like Silicon Valley. The rest of the country is not and has drawn a line to protect everyone’s backyards.

There’s one more salient question that seems ignored by media, D.C. and Silicon Valley. What if the computational infrastructure is almost obsolete?

For example, in 2026 alone, companies have committed $650 billion to classical AI computing; that is, data centers built on the same computational architecture that has dominated since the 1950s. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed research published in Science suggests classical computing architecture may face fundamental limits. IBM, which quietly announced a $10 billion quantum computing investment in June, has said as much itself.

The critical, yet unasked, question is whether the data centers being rushed through zoning boards today will become stranded assets before they are paid off. Citizens fighting for their water supply, their electric bills and their rural landscapes may be winning battles over infrastructure that the tech industry itself may abandon all too soon.

And if history is any guide, communities left holding abandoned infrastructure will bear the cost of cleanup long after the industry has moved on.

*What is a data center? It is a large facility that uses a lot of computer servers to store, process and distribute digital information. Data centers support most of modern life in the U.S.: cloud computing (Google Drive and Microsoft Office); streaming (Netflix and YouTube); AI (ChatGPT and Claude); social media (Facebook and Bluesky); ecommerce (Amazon and eBay); as well as using your smartphone (texts), online banking (transfer funds), health care services (e-check-in) and your favorite e-greeting card service (Blue Mountain and Hallmark).

This first appeared at Substack.

The post An invisible industry no more appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

By Bruce S. Ticker

The Graham Platner implosion should prove to the Jewish community that it can prevail over these arrogant “progressives” who are stomping all over us to build a political empire.

We need to vigorously stand up to the anti-Israel mob before they achieve significant power in America. The effort could be relatively easy because they lack substance, or the “true grit” that is credited to John Wayne’s character in the movie True Grit.

Graham Platner’s world collapsed at 6:30 Monday night once CNN host Jake Tapper heard Platner’s former girlfriend, Jenny Racicot, accuse the Maine U.S. Senate candidate of raping her five years his current run to oust five-term Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins. He was overwhelmingly nominated in the Democratic primary last month to challenge Collins. He swiftly denied Racicot’s accusation on Monday night.
Within an hour of Tapper’s interview, Democratic leaders clamored for Platner to drop out of the race so the state party can replace him on the ballot with someone who is not neck-deep in scandal. Wednesday night, Platner announced that he will remove his name from the ballot by Monday, and state Democrats are required to name a replacement by July 27.

Platner and likeminded Democratic candidates are empty suits who have galvanized voters desperate for better government. They trot out a series of social reforms that they will seek to enact if elected and pay for it by ending military aid to Israel. Many of their followers believe that all Jews must be blamed for the actions of the Israeli government, so harming Jews is a blow against Israel.

They fault Democrats in Congress for neglecting to stand up against President Trump. How can they? Incumbent Democrats are in the minority in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives and therefore have sorely limited power. What have four-term anti-Israel congresswomen like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar accomplished?

If Democrats retake the majority in the House and/or the Senate, are progressives going to take all the credit if Congress does anything positive? If President Trump blocks their efforts, will they accept the blame?

And why are they mixing Israel with these proposals for social change? American Jews can be a useful ally for making social reforms a reality, but candidates like Platner are alienating many Jews with his approach to criticizing Israel.

What is wrong with criticizing Israel? Nothing. The problem is their way of doing it.

They limit their criticism to Israel and ignore the acts of other parties in the Middle East. It was at best rare for anti-Israel candidates to demand that Hamas release the Israeli hostages they kidnapped from southern Israel in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. No criticism of Iran, which transported weapons to Hamas. Silence over Egypt’s refusal to admit most Gazans into its country. Nor of Turkey, another enabler of terrorists in Gaza. What are Jews supposed to think?

They also distort the issues when they attack Israel by lying or leaving out relevant details. One critic accused Israel of expelling 80 percent of the Arab refugees during the 1948 war. It was probably the other way around. They conveniently fail to mention that the Arabs invaded Israel and many Arabs left to allow them space to exterminate the Jews.

Let’s not forget – well, how can we? – “Free Palestine” and “Globalize the intifada,” the most common slogans they chant at demonstrations. We recognize those lines as code for destroying Israel, but these people do not clarify what they mean. Free Palestine for what? What is Palestine? Can they define intifada? Does “globalize” mean spreading the war worldwide?

Until now, Americans and citizens of most other countries have failed to challenge them. Few legal systems prosecute them for mid-level crimes, which can lead to severe crimes that they do get prosecuted for. Democrats largely treat them with kid gloves, presumably in hopes that they will vote for the party’s candidates, particularly in presidential elections.

The Jewish community’s silence has been conspicuous. Some of Israel’s critics may well believe that Jews in America and elsewhere are part of a vast conspiracy in league with the Israeli government.

My sense is that diaspora Jews were quiet because of fear and confusion. The present environment of antisemitic harassment has clearly petrified many Jews and they are not sure what to do about it.

The confusion derives from Israeli actions in Gaza that critics call war crimes. I do not understand what the Israeli government is trying to do, and I don’t see how anyone outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his closest advisors can understand it.

Obviously, progressive candidates who won their primaries in Democratic districts are headed for Congress in January, which makes one wonder how we can fight them.

In the lead-up to the November election, their Republican rivals are likely to harshly attack them. Trump has already called them communists, though that does not appear to be true.

These progressives may well be safely ensconced in Congress next year, but we cannot let them relax. The Jewish community can pressure them whenever an important issue arises.

House members will need to run for re-election in two years, and they will be forced to defend their records.

They appear awfully frightful on the surface, but my bet is that most of them cannot justify their work in Congress. We will only find out if we confront them.

Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist. This article is republished from San Diego Jewish World which, along with The Moderate Voice, is a member of the San Diego Online News Association.

The post The Graham Platner implosion appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The headline: “President of Somaliland visits Israel” isn’t top of the media’s listicles but it is an important piece of the bigger picture.

Back up, let me explain: what we think of as “Somalia” is actually two countries, divided like North and South Korea, oddly mimicking that split dynamic where one country is an utter disaster (North Korea/Somalia) and the other is a prospering, democratic ally of the west (South Korea, Somaliland). That’s a good way of framing it and it is an object lesson in “systems matter”, democracy matters.

Except… in the Horn of Africa’s case the Somaliland good guys are barely recognized by the international community, unlike South Korea.

Non recognition is disastrous, a huge tax. It impacts every aspect of a country’s fortunes: the UN, corporate insurance, trading, contract rights, flight patterns, currency, passports and ease of travel and yet even without broad recognition Somaliland is democratic and has somehow flourished for thirty years.

“Somaliland” was a British colony, “Somalia” an Italian one until the independence of both in 1960. Somaliland was immediately monstered, bombed and colonized by Somalia for three decades.

In 1991 Somaliland gained control over its frontiers after having the stuffing beaten out of them, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead and a ruined, bombed capital city. The Issak Genocide by the Somali forces bombing their Somaliland neighbors is, unfortunately, rarely remembered as a major crime of last century.

In an impressive middle finger, the Somalilanders propped up a Somali Russian MiG jet they shot down while it was bombing them on a plinth in their capital Hargeisa in a total “boss move”.

After three decades of de facto independence in recent years Somaliland has established diplomatic relations with Taiwan and earlier this year with Israel. They’re playing footsie with their huge Ethiopian neighbor and they’re “in tight” with the Emirates, a nation increasingly shaping that part of the world. And hopefully, imminent American recognition will cascade into other countries rising Somaliland up to deal on equal terms with the rest of the civilized world.

There are two sides to our global reality now: like the Cold War good guys and bad guys.

There’s Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Somalia and Hamas/”Palestine”, in what historian Sir Nial Ferguson calls the “axis of ill will” versus the forces of democracy whose trade, gentle commerce and classical liberal enlightenment values enhance human flourishing. On that side lie the United States, NATO, Israel, and the “first island chain” in East Asia like Taiwan. This is the collective “West” which Somaliland has joined to the anger of their Third World failed state enemies.

In the shadow of Israel and Somaliland establishing full diplomatic relations, Somaliland’s President Abdulrahman Abdullahi had this recent flashy official state visit to Israel.

This new alliance is deeply inspiring because despite being different races, speaking different languages, and crucially Somaliland being Muslim, reasonable people on both sides could come together and, outraging and shocking many, form a real friendship.

Further, in making friends with Israel Somaliland has really irritated the Arab League, the entire Islamosphere and the UN. For a poor, Islamic country to conduct such a wild maneuver as an alliance with the Zionists is a big bet, a sincere vote for civilization which will pay dividends.

It’s worth noting also that, rare for Africa, Somaliland is not a vassal or tributary state of the People’s Republic of China.

Somaliland is poor but stable. They seem to make a lot of pretty edgy but profitable decisions. Consider their currency: a challenge because no international banking organizations recognize the country so their cash is counted in brick sized, rubber band tied stacks. Not good, so the Somalianders skipped ahead to a smart, internet based fintech solution. It is now a fintech center of Africa.

Further, realizing the value of port infrastructure, they enticed the UAE – a preeminent regional player – to build a port in Berbera and a cement factory, both of which are doing well.

Coincidentally all this is at the “Bab al Mandeb,” the Red Sea entrance where the hooligan Houthis of Yemen have been increasing the cost of your Amazon purchases and interrupting freedom of navigation for several years by doing classic Houthi stunts like blowing up other peoples’ ships. For Allah, you see.

Like Singapore, Somaliland is leveraging its position at one of the chokepoints of world trade. Nearby Djibouti has done this but Djibouti is an unreliable ally, a closed almost parody level kleptocracy. Obviously Red Sea commerce is even more important given all the celebrations and excitement in the Persian Gulf these days with the Iranians.

Meanwhile failed state Somalia desperately appeals, on dubious grounds, to the Third World, their new overlords Turkey and the Saudis from “Villa Mogadishu” – the only land they really govern around the capital, or presidential compound sometimes.

The rest of Somalia is two breakaway states Puntland and Jubaland with the rest being a Mad Max post apocalyptic hot chaos of starving people and wild jihadis, home of Islamic terrorist “Al Shabab.” (“The kids” – no kidding). Quietly US forces routinely hammer Islamic terrorists in the mountains.

Though, on balance, Somalia recently signed an alliance with Myanmar, an equally dysfunctional failed dystopic ruin on the other side of the Indian Ocean. Embarrassing.

If you look at Somaliland v Somalia, think North and South Korea. Somaliland (the good one) is desperate for American and thus wider international recognition. Their new friendship with Israel is not just profitable in itself (medicine, water issues which bedevil hot, dry Somaliland) but even if it doesn’t move the needle to wider recognition it is a plus.

If it does and Somaliland’s independence is recognized more widely with international finance, diaspora investment and even things you never think of like ICAO (world airline association), there’s no reason why Somaliland can’t be the richest country in Africa a decade hence.

They have the democracy, property rights and sound judgement necessary to let humans flourish and prosper. The people there have, by ballot, rejected crazy and impoverishing “Third Worldism”, the Russian menace, socialism and political Islamism. And that is …. alright.

joepyrek, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The post An Inspiring African-Middle East Story: Somaliland appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The post GRAHAM FACE PLANTS OVER RAPE ALLEGATION appeared first on The Moderate Voice.