Business Insider

businessinsider.com

National NewsOriginal publisher

Compare

17 stories credited to Business Insider (14 on businessinsider.com, 3 reproduced by other sites)

Latest story Apr 16, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026

A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.

Compare with another source

Credibility

High

10 stories · 95% range 80–86 · updated Sep 24, 2026

How this is measured

Political lean

Center49 of 100

10 stories · 95% range 46–53 · updated Sep 24, 2026

How this is measured

Originality

100%of 14 hosted stories are not confirmed copies of another outlet’s article

14 stories · updated Sep 24, 2026

How this is measured

Writing quality 88 of 100: the average rating of 10 stories, each rated on its own (separate from credibility). How it is measured

Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Stories credited to Business Insider, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.

Stories from Business Insider
Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)

Show as a table

Month	Stories	All outlets
October 2025	1	44
November 2025	0	79
December 2025	0	27
January 2026	3	87
February 2026	1	180
March 2026	2	1,094
April 2026	10	4,537
May 2026	0	none collected
June 2026	0	none collected
July 2026	0	none collected
August 2026	0	1 (collection gap)
September 2026	0	598

Who they cover

Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 16 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 30 story–official pairs, from 17 stories.

Republican43% · 13 pairs
Democrat40% · 12 pairs
Independent13% · 4 pairs
Party not recorded3% · 1 pair

Most covered

Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 17 stories.

+ 6 other officials (6 story–official pairs)

Article tone

ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Business Insider’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 17 stories.

Good Look: 3 (18%)
Mixed: 13 (76%)
Informational: 0 (0%)
Bad Look: 1 (6%)

WDIV

clickondetroit.com

Local NewsCenter · 24 stories

Lean 95% range 48–51 · updated Sep 24, 2026

Similar lean · 2 shared topics

WTOP News

wtop.com

Local NewsCenter · 26 stories

Lean 95% range 48–51 · updated Sep 25, 2026

Similar lean · 1 shared topic

Associated Press

apnews.com

Wire ServiceCenter · 460 stories

Lean 95% range 48.9–49.3 · updated Sep 24, 2026

Similar lean · 3 shared topics

Reuters

reuters.com

Wire ServiceCenter · 133 stories

Lean 95% range 49–50 · updated Sep 24, 2026

Similar lean · 3 shared topics

Semafor

semafor.com

Local NewsCenter · 29 stories

Lean 95% range 48–51 · updated Sep 25, 2026

Similar lean · 2 shared topics

Politico

politico.com

National NewsCenter · 99 stories

Lean 95% range 48–51 · updated Sep 25, 2026

Similar lean · 3 shared topics

Challenges to these scores

No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.

Articles served from businessinsider.com

From Venezuela to Iran, major operations have kept US Navy supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford away from home for almost 10 months

USS Gerald R. Ford US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jackson Adkins The US Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford has been deployed for 297 days. The Ford left Virginia last June, and it has since had its deployment extended twice. The warship has seen combat operations against Venezuela and Iran, as well as shipboard problems. The new US Navy supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford has been deployed for 297 days, a record-long carrier deployment in the modern era extended by significant military operations. In the almost ten months since the carrier left its homeport in Virginia, it has participated in major military operations in two very different theaters while also dealing with shipboard issues. The warship, the Navy's newest, largest, and most advanced aircraft carrier with dozens of new technologies, has demonstrated its combat capabilities while also highlighting the stress and strain of lengthy deployments. The Ford left Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia on June 24, 2025. As of Wednesday, it was still in the Mediterranean Sea. The ship has been away from home for a record-breaking 297 days following two extensions that could see its deployment rival those of the Vietnam era, when carriers would deploy for national tasking for periods over 300 days. During the war, USS Midway deployed for 332 days. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln set a post-Cold War record in 2020 with a 295-day deployment. Then USS Nimitz later spent roughly 341 days at sea during the COVID-19 pandemic, marking one of the longest stretches for a US carrier in decades. The carrier was, however, only deployed for national tasking for 263 days, USNI News reported. The Ford now holds the record for the longest post-Vietnam carrier deployment. Major US military operations The first-in-class Ford's deployment — only its second fully operational deployment — took it across the Atlantic to Europe and then to the Caribbean in November as part of the Trump administration's pressure campaign against Venezuela. The Ford remained in the region for several weeks and participated in operations against sanctioned oil tankers. It stayed on station through the surprise US raid to capture Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, known as Operation Absolute Resolve. After the raid in January, the Ford got the call in mid-February to join the growing US presence mission in the Middle East. The warship remained there into the start of Operation Epic Fury, the name for US military action against Iran, generating sorties of aircraft to support strikes on Iranian military targets. The Ford was pulled out of combat in Iran late last month for maintenance. US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tajh Payne Issues aboard the Ford cut its time in the Middle East short, forcing the carrier to pull into port in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea for maintenance. In March, the Navy reported that a fire in the ship's main laundry space injured two sailors, though the carrier remained fully operational. Soldiers were also treated for injuries related to smoke inhalation. Later reporting revealed that the fire was much more extensive, damaging berthing areas. Sailor cots and mattresses were damaged, while many sailors were left unable to clean their clothes with laundry services out of commission. The Navy had to bring in new mattresses and sweatsuits to distribute to the crew, USNI News reported in mid-March in mid-March. The Ford's crew of more than 4,000 embarked personnel have also faced plumbing problems during its long deployment, an issue previously raised by the US Government Accountability Office in a 2020 report. The carrier's toilet and sewage systems, similar to those on a commercial aircraft but scaled up for the size of the crew, experience frequent clogging issues, prompting the Navy to rely on acid flushing the Ford's sewage system "on a regular basis," the GAO report said. Citing Navy documents, NPR reported in January that regular breakdowns in the sewage system and clogging have been occurring since the $13 billion carrier set sail on its first fully operational deployment in 2023. A long time away from home A Navy official told The Wall Street Journal in late February that the ship had been averaging a maintenance call a day due to problems with the sewage system, though they also said that the situation was improving. "The sailors of USS Gerald R. Ford said goodbye to their families in Norfolk last June thinking they would be back before the holidays," Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, said in a statement Wednesday. "But after being ordered from the Mediterranean to the coast of Venezuela and then to the Middle East, Ford today broke the record for the longest modern carrier deployment." The Ford originally deployed to Europe before crossing the Atlantic for operations against Venezuela. US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Brianna Barnett "While I'm grateful for how our sailors have conducted themselves during the last 10 months, this lengthy deployment has taken a serious toll on their mental health and well-being, especially after the recent fire that temporarily left 600 sailors without sleeping berths," he said. Navy leadership has acknowledged that extended deployments present a number of challenges for crew members, who often grapple with greater stress as deployments extend beyond the usual six-month period. "Long deployments are challenging," Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, commander of the Ford Carrier Strike Group, said in February statement. "Fatigue accumulates and time away from home weighs on Sailors." The Ford's commanding officer, Capt. David Skarosi, wrote a letter to the families of the warship's crew recognizing the impact of the extensions and that plans had been upended by the move, but, as The Journal reported, he also wrote that "when our country calls, we answer." "Extended deployments demand endurance," Adm. Daryl Caudle, the chief of naval operations, said in a separate public statement. "They ask Sailors to miss births, anniversaries, and everyday moments at home. They ask families to shoulder additional responsibility. That sacrifice is real, and we do not take it lightly." Lengthy deployments also strain warships and their systems, often forcing crews to rely on at-sea fixes that keep operations going but don't fully resolve underlying problems. High-tempo operations take their toll, wearing out components and increasing the likelihood of an accident occurring. Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 16, 202610 votes

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

Data center projects are running into resistance from communities and politicians across the country. Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images The booming data center industry faces growing pushback from communities and politicians. Industry executives worry that there hasn't been a coordinated response to its image problems. As states consider moratoriums, trillions of dollars of development could be at risk. A swell of backlash against the data center development boom has left the industry struggling to reboot its image. The mounting opposition over issues such as rising power costs, water usage, and AI's broader impact on the job market and environment could threaten trillions of dollars of projects backed by Big Tech, Wall Street investment giants, and a growing collection of developers. Large and prominent projects have already become casualties of the blowback. In late March, a Virginia appeals court invalidated a rezoning for Digital Gateway, a planned 22 million square foot data center complex on a rural parcel outside Washington, D.C. — potentially scuttling the mega-project. "The data center industry has gone too far. They've overpopulated certain jurisdictions, and people don't want them," Chap Petersen, an attorney who represented two nonprofit groups that sued to overturn the rezoning. "Communities are recognizing this is not free money, they impact the standard of living and people's perceptions of their own neighborhood." Despite increasingly glaring setbacks, the disparate cast of players involved in the data center boom has struggled to unite and mount a coordinated defense. "The worst business decision these companies can make is to invest billions in infrastructure while ceding the public debate to the loudest voices who will regulate them out of existence," the Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure Coalition wrote in a statement to Business Insider. The Washington DC-based advocacy group, which was cofounded late last year by former politicians Kyrsten Sinema, a US senator from Arizona, and Garret Graves, a Louisiana congressman, added that the "industry can't outsource the sales job" — an acknowledgment that it needed to take a more active hand in public relations and politics. Some industry leaders openly said that, as data centers proliferate around the country, they have failed to win over a public that is increasingly aware and skeptical. "The data center industry hasn't done a good job of explaining itself," said Ryan Mallory, the CEO of Flexential, a data center developer and operator. "I want to be very vocal about this so people know and understand how valuable these sites are." The growing threat of regulation The negative sentiment toward the industry is spilling over into politics. In March, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez jointly proposed a federal ban on data center development. Several individual states, including Maine, are considering moratoriums. Legislators in Virginia, which hosts the largest data center market in the country, are examining whether to do away with a lucrative incentive that has saved data center developers billions of dollars in sales taxes on the equipment they install at facilities. Another data center executive who spoke to Business Insider anonymously because he has projects under public review in various locations around the country, singled out Big Tech companies because he believed the enormity of their development plans had spurred the public's ire and the threat of regulation. He said he has seen them do little to present a rousing, unified message to the public, in part because of the intense competition among them to win the AI race. "You're trying to get Google and Amazon and Oracle and Meta to all say the same thing and agree," he said. "Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg want to get into a cage fight." The result, he said, has been a fragmented response that has been insufficient "to combat the abundance of misinformation swirling around." In the crosshairs of controversy Once obscure to the wider public, data centers are now in the crosshairs of several leading controversies, including a nationwide affordability crisis. As facilities have sprawled across the country, they have necessitated costly, large-scale utility infrastructure, including transmission lines and power plants. That, in turn, has driven up electricity prices for some consumers. "Folks are calling electricity prices like the new price of eggs," said Christie Hicks, an attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental organization that has been critical of data center development. "I don't think that there's anyone who would say, yes, I would like to pay more for my electricity so that I can subsidize some of the wealthiest companies in the world." Because they provide the heavy computing for AI, data centers have also become emblematic of a technology whose rapid advance has stoked widespread fears about job losses across the economy. Much of the data center boom, meanwhile, has been energized by burning fossil fuels, drawing opposition from environmental groups who say the facilities will contribute significantly to the climate crisis. Some facilities deplete local water resources by consuming millions of gallons a day for cooling. Major tech companies, along with other leading participants in the building boom, have sought to assuage the criticism. In a recent blog post, "Building Community-First AI Infrastructure," a Microsoft executive said the company won't siphon away water or raise energy prices, will create jobs, provide AI training, and that its facilities will contribute revenue for essential public services like schools and libraries. "We partner closely with local and state leaders, listen to community needs, and ensure our investments benefit residents," Oracle said in a statement provided to Business Insider. The company has partnered with OpenAI to build tens of billions of dollars of data centers across the country. QTS, which is owned by the Wall Street investment giant Blackstone and is one of the developers behind the Digital Gateway project, said in a statement that it is "focused on being a transparent, trusted partner to responsibly deliver the infrastructure behind modern digital life." A matter of national security In early March, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, OpenAI, and Oracle announced what has been seen as one of their biggest coordinated efforts at publicity, signing an agreement with President Donald Trump in which they pledged that the costs for their power infrastructure "are not passed to American households." The agreement "shows an awareness that these companies understand they have a public perception issue at least and they're interested in trying to address that," Hicks said. The data center executive who didn't want to be identified said the industry needed more of that kind of collaborative approach. He pointed to when US semiconductor manufacturers in the 1980s banded together to work on research and design, rally domestic support, and beat back foreign competitors. He said the industry should launch a similar initiative oriented around the idea that the AI race is a matter of national security and that the US's future economic vitality depends on prevailing over rivals like China. George P. Bush, the nephew of former president George W. Bush, who operates a public affairs firm in Texas that has assisted data center industry participants navigate development in the state, said that "this overarching competition of technological supremacy" is difficult for "everyday constituents to conceptualize." He said that even in Texas, which has long been considered a business-friendly state, there were some signs of skepticism. The state has more planned data center development than any market in the country, but Bush said that in private conversations, pubic officials, who he declined to name, who had once championed projects, had now signaled concern to him. "In 2024, where people would say, 'we want these types of developments'," Bush said. "Those same individuals that I've had personal conversations with now are saying 'hey, wait a second'." Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 16, 202622 votes

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

Apr 16, 202618 votes

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

Apr 16, 202617 votes

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

Richard Nixon conducted a secret bombing of Cambodia without Congressional approval in 1970. Bettmann Archive/GettyImages The war with Iran triggered debate in Congress over war powers. Presidents have repeatedly ordered military operations without Congress since WWII. In some instances, lawmakers have checked the president's power in response. Following the United States' and Israel's attacks on Iran, a host of ethical, economic, and political questions have been raised about the decision to strike the country. One of the conflict's most pressing political questions has centered on the legality of the war itself. Operation Epic Fury, a large-scale military operation, was launched without congressional authorization, which lawmakers argue is required under the Constitution. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in a post on X on March 17 that President Donald Trump ordered the operation after determining Iran posed an "imminent threat." Trump's former head of counterterrorism, Joe Kent, refuted the claim in his resignation letter last month. Trump, who has referred to the conflict as a war multiple times, has repeatedly said it could end "very soon" — or last longer. A two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran is currently in place, but Vice President JD Vance left peace talks with Iran on April 12 without securing a deal to end the war. Congress hasn't officially declared war since December 8, 1941, when war was declared on the Empire of Japan the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Since then, in instances like the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War, Congress has typically approved force via "Authorization for Use of Military Force." While not an official declaration of war, it allows the military to engage in targeted objectives, according to the Library of Congress. Still, there have been plenty of times throughout American history when the president has ordered large-scale military operations without direct Congressional approval, whether through loose interpretations of presidential powers or without providing any legal justification. This has become much more common since World War II, as the US became a global superpower and maintained large standing forces of troops, aircraft, and ships. While this practice has been met with legal challenges at times in history, in other instances, presidents have avoided scrutiny from Congress due to widespread support for the military action. Andrew Wiest, a professor of military history at the University of Southern Mississippi, said these instances are part of a broader concession of Congressional war powers to the executive branch since WWII. "Since 1946, Congress has relinquished this constitutional authority and granted it to the president, probably much to the founders' chagrin," Wiest said. "The founders were extremely wary of a president with too much military authority." In recent decades, US presidents have repeatedly used drones and cruise missiles to strike at terror groups. In President Trump's second term, his administration has launched airstrikes in Nigeria, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia. Here are 11 notable examples of US military operations conducted without direct congressional approval. Philippine-American War American soldiers in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War, May 1899. Hulton Archive/Getty Images Even before WWII, certain US military actions were the source of fierce debate. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Islands were ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris in 1898. Despite the United States' claim to the territory, Filipino revolutionary fighters declared independence and resisted American attempts to acquire the islands. President William McKinley never sought a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress. Since the Treaty of Paris was newly ratified by Congress, however, McKinley interpreted it as an effective approval of force from lawmakers. The war was controversial in Congress, with anti-imperialists claiming the annexation of the Philippines was illegal, according to the House of Representatives. The war lasted over three years, from 1899 to 1902, and American deaths totaled 4,200. About 20,000 Filipino fighters were killed, while up to 200,000 civilians died of disease, famine, and violence, per the Department of State. Korean War American soldiers in the Korean War. President Truman labeled the effort a "police action." Keystone/Getty Images After the US and Soviet Union divided Korea into two countries following WWII, fighting ensued in 1950 when North Korean forces invaded South Korea. The United Nations Security Council soon directed its member nations to assist South Korea, prompting US involvement. President Harry Truman, however, never sought any form of approval from Congress, instead labeling the US's efforts a "police action" under the auspices of the UN. This framing was refuted by some members of Congress, with Republican Senator Robert Taft claiming the lack of congressional approval was "a complete usurpation by the president of authority to use the armed forces of this country," per the Brennan Center. The war's identity as an international effort overshadowed the lack of congressional approval, according to Wiest. "At the time, the UN was young, robust, and something new," Wiest said. "With a UN resolution to defend South Korea, what more top cover do you need?" The Korean War ultimately lasted three years and resulted in the deaths of 37,000 American soldiers, according to the Department of Defense. As many as 5 million people lost their lives in total from the conflict, many of them civilians. Vietnam War American soldiers of the 173th airborne are evacuated by helicopter from a Vietcong position in December 1965. AFP via Getty Images Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964, giving President Lyndon Johnson the authority to use military force in Vietnam and the surrounding countries. But as the war dragged on and opposition at home grew, pressure mounted on the US government, and questions arose about Johnson's continued war powers. Then, two years after Richard Nixon had assumed office, Congress repealed the resolution, meaning no law on the books authorized US military force in Southeast Asia. Though Nixon began reducing the number of deployed US troops when he took office in 1969, bombing campaigns continued until the end of the war. A federal appeals court later declared the war a political issue and did not rule on the legality of Nixon's continued bombing, The New York Times reported. A total of 58,220 Americans died as a result of the war, per the National Archives. Bombing of Cambodia The aftermath of a US B-52 bombing in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Congress later passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, limiting Nixon's military power. Bettman Archive/GettyImages Nixon also conducted bombing campaigns in Cambodia, which began in 1969 and continued after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The operation — to disrupt supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh trail and to target suspected communist hubs — began in secret without Congress ever being informed. The bombings prompted Congress' passing of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which aimed to limit the president's power in conducting military operations. Nixon vetoed the legislation, but Congress overrode the veto with a two-thirds majority. The successful war-powers challenge represented a rare moment in modern American history where Congress reclaimed its war powers. Wiest said political factors play a large role in Congress' usual inaction. "Partisanship and politics is part of it," Wiest said. "No congressman can be seen as being against the troops. In my view, there's no more risky electoral thing to do." From 1969 to 1973, the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia. Estimates for civilians killed as a result of the bombings range from 150,000 to 500,000, per PBS Frontline. 1983 invasion of Grenada US soldiers run across a soccer field during the US invasion of Grenada in October 1983. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images In 1983, a coup in Grenada resulted in the execution of the country's leader, Maurice Bishop. Ostensibly to protect hundreds of medical students in the country and restore order after the government's overthrow, the US invaded the island nation with help from Caribbean allies. The US invasion, ordered by President Ronald Reagan, was carried out without congressional approval. This prompted Congress to apply the War Powers Resolution, forcing withdrawal of US troops within 60 days, The New York Times reported. The campaign only lasted eight days, but it resulted in the death of 19 US soldiers and 24 Grenadian civilians, per Army University Press. 1989 invasion of Panama US soldiers inspect a prison cell in Panama during the 1989 invasion. Steven D Starr/Corbis via Getty Images In what was codenamed Operation Just Cause, the US invaded Panama in 1989 with the intention of overthrowing its leader, Manuel Noriega, who was indicted under US law for drug trafficking. Other reasons cited for the operation were protecting Americans in Panama, defending democracy, and protecting the Panama Canal treaties. The State Department said the actions were also carried out with the consent of Panama's legitimate government, which was sworn in before the invasion. Like Reagan before him, President George H.W. Bush didn't seek congressional approval beforehand. However, the invasion had strong public and congressional support, subduing potential war-powers challenges. The invasion was swift, and Noriega was quickly captured and tried in the US. He was later convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison, eventually serving 17 years in the US. All in all, 23 US soldiers were killed in the operation, and an internal US Army memo estimated the number of Panamanian deaths at around 1,000, per Politico. 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia A Kosovan civilian in Pec, Yugoslavia walks among rubble in June 1999. Georges MERILLON/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images During the Kosovo War, NATO forces led by the US initiated a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia against the Yugoslav Army. NATO said the strikes were intended to stop "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovar Albanians by Yugoslav forces and to pressure those forces to leave Kosovo. Though Congress originally voted to send US peacekeeping troops to NATO in March of 1999 before the bombing began, a later House measure authorizing the strikes failed in a tie vote. The continued bombing campaign under President Bill Clinton later prompted a war powers lawsuit filed by 31 members of the House, which was dismissed by a judge on the grounds that "a clear impasse between the executive and legislative branches" was absent, CBS News reported. Much as with the Korean War after WWII, Wiest said, the notion of internationalism following the end of the Cold War provided cover for the operation's legality. "It was a period of early optimism in the wake of a world-changing event, so that optimism, with the top cover of the UN or NATO, just overwhelmed any American constitutional need to declare war," he said. As well as killing over 1,000 Yugoslav combatants, the strikes claimed the lives of roughly 500 civilians, per Human Rights Watch. 2011 US and NATO intervention in Libya A missile being fired from the USS Barry during operation Odyssey Dawn. DDG 52/GettyImages As part of an intervention conducted by NATO forces, US forces participated in strikes on Libya during the Libyan Civil War. In response to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on civilians, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 on March 17, 2011, which authorized military action in Libya. President Barack Obama never sought congressional approval for the action, leading to criticism from Congress and 10 House members filing a lawsuit in an attempt to block further military action, NPR reported. The legal action was later dismissed by a federal judge, Reggie Walton, who noted that lawmakers already had the legislative means to challenge the military operation in Congress. In light of other pressing political issues, Walton said, "…the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law." The Obama administration used the UN Security Council resolution as a justification and claimed the operation was limited and thus within the scope of the War Powers Resolution. US strikes in Yemen A Yemeni man walks among the rubble of a destroyed building. AFP/GettyImages The US struck Houthi targets in Yemen after the military group began targeting commercial ships in 2023 in response to Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip. Both the Biden and Trump administrations conducted strikes against the Houthis without seeking congressional approval. The most recent strikes in 2025, conducted by the Trump administration, killed at least 224 civilians, per the Middle East monitoring group Airwars. Wiest said there's a double standard applied to ground versus air military operations, with the latter offering more war-powers leeway. "The use of air power has almost been a kind of national 'Get Out of Jail Free' card when it comes to opening these types of conflicts," he said. 2025 strikes on Iran nuclear sites B-2 spirit stealth bombers like the one pictured here over Afghanistan were used in Operation Midnight Hammer. USAF/Getty Images In what was codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, the Trump administration struck Iran's nuclear facilities without Congressional approval. President Trump argued the strike was a necessary measure to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. While the strikes had the broad support of Republican lawmakers, Democrats and Republican Thomas Massie criticized the operation's lack of authorization from Congress, NPR reported. 2026 US raid inside Venezuela Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, as they're escorted to court in Manhattan. ADAM GRAY/REUTERS On January 3, the Trump administration conducted surprise strikes on Venezuela that deposed the country's president, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro was captured and brought to the US, where he faces narco-terrorism and other drug charges. The former Venezuelan leader has pleaded not guilty. The Trump administration justified the strikes by calling them "law-enforcement operations" to target what it called Maduro's "narco-terrorist organization." The strikes resulted in about 75 deaths, including two civilians and 32 Cuban special forces, per the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Seven American troops were injured. Critics in Congress questioned the legality of the intervention. While a war powers resolution was brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by the Republican-led majority. Editor's note: This story was originally published in March 2026. It was most recently updated in April 2026 to reflect the US-Iran ceasefire. Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 15, 202610 votes

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

Apr 15, 202625 votes

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

Apr 15, 20269 votes

Soccer fans spending hundreds on World Cup tickets have another problem: sky-high transit fares

Lionel Messi celebrates with Argentina team members after winning the 2022 World Cup. David Ramos - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images Soccer fans face jacked-up prices for this summer's World Cup. Train fares for games in Boston have been hiked four-times to $80. Politicians and fan groups have criticized high ticket prices for games and transport. It isn't just tickets to games that FIFA World Cup fans will have to shell out for — they'll also have to pay way more for transit to stadiums. Gillette Stadium, the home of the New England Patriots, is hosting seven matches of the tournament, which is being held across the US, Canada, and Mexico. Fans going to games at the venue face $80 round-trip train fares for the journey to and from Boston's South Station, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority announced last week. Such tickets usually cost $20 during other events, or $8.75 on a regular day. The two rail stations are about 20 miles apart. The Athletic also reported on Tuesday that New Jersey Transit is planning to charge $100 for a round-trip rail ticket between Penn Station and MetLife Stadium. It's set to host eight World Cup matches, including the final. That journey usually costs $12.90, meaning prices during the World Cup could be up to 8 times higher than during most events. The report drew criticism from Chuck Schumer, the New York senator and Senate minority leader. "FIFA is set to reap nearly $11 billion from this summer's World Cup, yet New York area commuters and residents are being handed the bill," he said in a post on X. "The least FIFA can do is ensure New York residents can go to the stadium without being gouged at the turnstile." Schumer also called on the sport's governing body to cover transportation costs. https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2044141688583811272?s=20 FIFA and NJ Transit did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider outside US working hours. An NJ Transit spokesperson told The Athletic that prices "have not been finalized." Ticket prices for World Cup games have already faced heavy criticism from fans. Richard Sellers/Sportsphoto/Allstar via Getty Images The MBTA said last Thursday that it sold some 17,450 rail tickets to Gillette Stadium on the first day sales opened. Phillip Eng, the CEO and general manager, said the "tremendous demand" showed the MBTA "needed to think outside the box to safely deliver unprecedented train service." With 6,200 tickets, fans attending the Haiti vs. Scotland game on June 13 broke the record for the most special-event train tickets sold for an individual event at Gillette Stadium — including Taylor Swift's three concerts in 2023. This year's World Cup is the biggest one yet, as FIFA expanded it from 32 teams to 48. That has helped the debuts of countries including Uzbekistan, Cape Verde, and Jordan. The price of tickets for games has drawn criticism from fan groups, particularly as only a small number of match tickets were originally offered at the lowest price of $60. "In practice they were so scarce that the entire Category 4 inventory was practically sold out before general public sales opened," said Football Supporters Europe, a fan group that advocates for affordability. While Scotland qualified for its first World Cup in 28 years, political leaders said fans could be priced out. The BBC found that the cheapest ticket available on FIFA's resale platform cost $690 for the Scotland vs Haiti match, up from $400. "Our historic return has been marred by FIFA's dynamic pricing model that has made the trip simply unaffordable for so many loyal supporters," Scottish First Minister John Swinney said in a letter to FIFA President Gianni Infantino earlier this month. "This model has made this the most expensive World Cup in history and it is the opposite of what football, and indeed the biggest sporting occasion on the planet, should be about." Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 15, 202614 votes

This billionaire is the odds-on favorite to become California's governor after Swalwell dropped out

Both Kalshi and Polymarket give billionaire Tom Steyer a 55% chance of becoming the next governor of California. Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images For months, Rep. Eric Swalwell was leading the prediction market odds for governor of California. He dropped out of the race on Sunday amid sexual misconduct allegations. Now, billionaire Tom Steyer is the odds-on favorite, with 55% on Kalshi and Polymarket. There's a new favorite to be the governor of California. Tom Steyer, a billionaire philanthropist and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, is now favored by prediction markets to win the gubernatorial election in the country's largest state in November. Traders on both Kalshi and Polymarket put Steyer's odds of winning at roughly 55%, well ahead of any of his competitors. Steyer's rise in the prediction markets began over the weekend amid allegations of sexual misconduct against Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, which broke on Friday. Swalwell has denied those allegations, which include inappropriate and nonconsensual sexual conduct with younger staffers. But the congressman faced an avalanche of calls to withdraw from the race, and on Sunday, he opted to do so. Ironically, Swalwell had touted his own odds on Kalshi multiple times throughout his campaign. I didn’t pay for a Super Bowl ad, but boy are people betting on my campaign tonight. @Kalshi My bet is on Californians. pic.twitter.com/HDGhIpFvLX — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) February 9, 2026 Steyer, a philanthropist and climate activist, made his fortune running the hedge fund Farallon Capital. He is estimated to be worth $2.4 billion, according to Forbes. He has largely self-funded his gubernatorial campaign, pouring a whopping $121.6 million into his bid as of mid-April. Steyer is one of three billionaires running for governor across the US right now. The other two are Republicans — Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio, and Rick Jackson in Georgia. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois is currently the only billionaire serving in a governor's mansion. Other recent billionaire governors include Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Jim Justice of West Virginia, both Republicans. Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 13, 202620 votes

What bets are lawmakers and staffers making on prediction markets? They don't have to say.

A new bill from Sens. Todd Young and Elissa Slotkin would amend government ethics rules to require disclosure of trades made on prediction markets. Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Spencer Platt/Getty Images There are concerns about potential insider trading by government officials on prediction markets. But government ethics rules don't require lawmakers or staffers to disclose their bets. Two senators recently introduced a bill to change that — but there are some potential downsides. Have you ever wondered exactly what sorts of financial bets lawmakers and top staffers are making? If you're talking about stock trading, that information is easy enough to find. Current ethics laws require federal politicians and other high-ranking government officials to disclose their purchases and sales of stocks within 30 to 45 days of making the trade, allowing the public to follow along. But if you're wondering about prediction market trades, you're out of luck: There's no law on the books requiring government officials to disclose to the public exactly what they may be betting on. That doesn't mean we're completely in the dark. Lawmakers are required to report sources of outside income worth more than $200, meaning the public should be able to know at least how much money public officials may be making from prediction market trading. Kedric Payne, vice president and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that it's a matter of enforcing current laws. "What's missing right now is for the ethics committees to remind people that these disclosure rules apply," Payne said. Kalshi, the largest prediction market in the US, has said that it automatically bans members of Congress from trading on its platform. And the White House recently warned staffers not to trade on prediction markets amid the Iran war, a White House official confirmed to Business Insider. The news was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. "All federal employees are subject to government ethics guidelines that prohibit the use of nonpublic information for financial benefit," White House spokesman Davis Ingle said. Still, the lack of detailed disclosure laws for prediction market trades has drawn attention from lawmakers, particularly as prediction markets have exploded in popularity and public concerns about potential insider trading have grown. 'Our hope is that this will restore trust' One bill, the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, aims to close the disclosure gap. Introduced in March by Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana and Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, the bill would require the president, vice president, members of Congress, and top staffers in both the executive and legislative branches to disclose the details of any prediction market trades worth more than $250. Those details include: The value and number of the event contracts purchased; When they were purchased (or sold); What the trade was on, and which side the person took; Which prediction market platform the person used; Any profit or loss incurred after the market resolved, or the person sold their contracts. "We think that we're creating the sort of mechanism that the American people would expect," Young told Bloomberg recently. "Our hope is that this will restore trust in the decision-making that we have here in Congress." The bill also prohibits those officials from using non-public information to profit from those prediction market trades, with violations carrying a fine of $500, or twice the amount of profit made on a prohibited trade — whichever is higher. 'It could end up influencing the market' At the same time, there may be some downsides to requiring the disclosure of individual event contract trades. Payne, who previously served as Deputy Chief Counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics, said that he didn't think increased disclosure would be "prudent or practical." In fact, having members of Congress disclose their investments in prediction markets that don't resolve for a long period of time may "make it worse," he said. Payne drew a comparison to the way that the public currently follows stock trades by members of Congress, arguing that the disclosure of individual prediction market trades could lead others to make that same bet, thus raising the price and financially benefiting the lawmaker. "They're going to bet with that member of Congress," Payne said. "It could end up influencing the market in a way that is damaging." Payne said that much like with stock trading, a simple blanket ban on members of Congress trading on prediction markets may make more sense. In recent months, several lawmakers have introduced bills that would impose new regulations on prediction markets or restrict the trading activity of public officials. One of those bills, the "End Prediction Market Corruption Act" from Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, would ban the president, vice president, and members of Congress from trading on prediction markets altogether. Correction: April 13, 2026 — This story has been updated to correct a misspelling of Kedric Payne's name. Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 13, 202613 votes

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

Wall Street has trillions on the line as the data center infrastructure boom takes off. Citi doesn't want to get left behind. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images Maine is set to pass a bill pausing new data centers until late 2027. Data centers face growing public resistance over environmental and infrastructure concerns. Maine's vote could mark the first-ever statewide moratorium on data center construction in the US. Maine could be the first state to successfully call a timeout on the AI race. Lawmakers in at least 12 states have tried this year to slow Big Tech's AI infrastructure buildout with legislation that would impose temporary bans on approvals and construction of new data centers. The proposed moratoriums are a response to rising local resistance to data centers, as communities across the country raise questions about the impact of these facilities on local resources and infrastructure. The US has 4,000 data centers, and 3,000 either proposed or under construction, according to the American Edge Project, a tech coalition. As their footprint has grown, local communities have mobilized protests over a wide range of concerns, from noise pollution to rising utility bills. A Business Insider review of state legislative dockets found 12 data center moratorium bills brought by state lawmakers in 2026. An aerial view of a 33 megawatt data center with closed-loop cooling system on October 20, 2025 in Vernon, California. A surge in demand for AI infrastructure is fueling a boom in data centers across the country and around the globe. Mario Tama/Getty Images Proponents of the bans said that pausing data center development would give state agencies time to study the impacts of data center growth on the environment, electricity rates, public health, local infrastructure, and more. Of those 12 bills, only Maine's hasn't stalled out or been voted down. This week, the state's House and Senate approved the bill's text, clearing the way for a final vote before the legislature adjourns on April 15. If passed, the bill would impose a temporary ban on AI data center construction in the state until November 1, 2027. Nearly all of the moratorium bills called for temporary bans on data center construction of at least a year. While Maine doesn't have a large data center footprint, it has seen an uptick in developer interest as Big Tech's AI infrastructure buildout spreads to every corner of the country. Legislators in states with mature data center markets, such as Georgia and Virginia, have had less luck drumming up support for statewide moratoriums. Maine's moratorium isn't guaranteed until the governor signs it into law — and there's always a chance it could be vetoed. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., conduct a news conference to announce the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, March 25, 2026. The legislation aims to "ensure that AI benefits workers, is safe and effective and does not harm communities or destroy the environment." Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced federal legislation calling for a national pause on data center development to allow Congress time to better understand their impacts. "Congress is way behind where it should be in understanding the nature of this revolution and its impacts," Sanders said in a press release. Here's how 12 states have tried to pause new data center development. Georgia A group of Democrats in Georgia's House of Representatives proposed a temporary halt to data center construction and development in the state. The bill never made it to the floor for a vote. House Bill 1059 would have required the state to form a commission to study the impact of data centers on Georgia's electric grid, water supply, and local infrastructure. Georgia is home to 93 data centers, according to the bill. Elon Musk's xAI has a large data center in Atlanta, and Microsoft is building an AI infrastructure hub nearby. Maine A bill that would put a temporary pause on data centers in the state is expected to pass both the state's House and Senate in a final vote by April 15. If it does pass, Maine will become the first state to enact a moratorium on data center construction. Maine isn't exactly a data center hot spot. Business Insider's data center map shows that, as of early 2025, only two facilities in the state had requested permits for diesel-fired backup generators. Maryland A group of Republican lawmakers in the Maryland House of Delegates floated an emergency measure immediately halting all data center construction in the state. It failed to gain traction. If passed, the emergency measure would have remained in effect until Maryland passed legislation requiring all data centers in the state to generate their own electricity. Instead, lawmakers next week are expected to pass broader energy legislation aimed at reducing residential electricity bills. Although Maryland's data center market is small, power-hungry facilities drive up electricity rates, according to the state's official utility watchdog. Residents picket DTE Energy, opposing the electric utility's plan to provide power for a proposed $7 billion data center in rural Michigan. They fear that it could raise residential electricity rates and endanger the water supply. : Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Michigan A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill to temporarily suspend data center approvals in the state until April 1, 2027. The legislation hasn't gone anywhere so far and isn't likely to succeed. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has previously indicated that she would oppose a data center moratorium in Michigan. Meanwhile, grassroots efforts have taken off at the local level. In March, East Lansing approved a six-month moratorium to give the city planning commission time to study the potential impacts of data centers on the community. Huron County, Delta County, and Big Rapids Township have approved moratoriums spanning from one to three years. New Hampshire A Democratic lawmaker tried and failed to push through a one-year moratorium on data center construction that would allow the state to study potential environmental impacts. Rep. Peter Schmidt's House Bill 1265 was voted down on March 11. New York State Sen. Liz Krueger's S9144 would halt the issuance of new data center permits in New York for three years, pending an environmental review. If enacted, the bill would also require the state's public service commission to issue a report on the impacts of data centers on everyday ratepayers. The bill is stalled in committee. Oklahoma A Republican Oklahoma lawmaker, Sen. Kendal Sacchieri, is pushing for a data center moratorium in the state through 2029 "to ensure that progress does not come at the expense of Oklahomans' quality of life or their utility costs," she said in a press release. Introduced in January, the bill stalled early on in the state's legislative session. That hasn't stopped local communities from making progress. Tulsa last month passed a nine-month data center moratorium. In March, the Seminole Nation became the first indigenous group to ban data centers in its territory. South Carolina Lawmakers proposed a moratorium in February. The bill hasn't gained traction. Google is expanding its presence in the state, and Meta is building a data center campus in Aiken County. South Dakota While a Senate committee in February killed a moratorium bill, South Dakota lawmakers didn't go too easy on data centers. Several proposed bills that would have given the industry a boost in the state failed to go through, including one that would have granted a 50-year sales tax exemption. Vermont Like its nearby state, Maine, Vermont isn't home to any major cloud data centers. That didn't stop Sen. Rebecca White from proposing a moratorium this year. The bill was referred to the Senate's finance committee in January and hasn't moved since. A Microsoft data center in Aldie, Virginia, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to release earnings figures on October 29. Bloomberg/Getty Images Virginia Lawmakers in Virginia, home to the world's largest concentration of data centers, reviewed a moratorium bill and decided to punt it to 2027. Virginia houses the world's largest concentration of data centers and was one of the first states to offer the industry an exemption from sales tax on computer equipment. In January, Virginia's Department of Taxation said the exemption had cost the state budget $1.9 billion in the 2025 fiscal year. The state legislature will convene a special session later in April to debate the future of the exemption, which is scheduled to expire in 2035. Lawmakers are fiercely divided over whether to end the program early or extend it through 2050. Wisconsin Wisconsin's attempt to pause data center construction died on the Senate floor less than two weeks after it was introduced. AB1099 would have implemented a moratorium on data center construction in Wisconsin until a statewide data center planning authority was established. While state-level efforts failed, a Milwaukee suburb this week became the first city in the country to pass a data center referendum. Now, all future data center tax breaks in Port Washington, home to an Oracle-backed Stargate site, will require local voter approval. Read the original article on Business Insider

Apr 11, 202613 votes

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

Apr 11, 202610 votes

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

Apr 11, 202613 votes

A senator is pressing the IRS to raise the mileage deduction that Uber drivers rely on to offset spiking gas prices

Senator Ruben Gallego asked for a higher per-mile deduction from the IRS in a Thursday letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. : Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Sen. Ruben Gallego is asking the IRS to increase the business deduction for driving a car. Gallego pointed to high gas prices after the US-Israel war with Iran. Uber and DoorDash drivers often use the deduction to defray their costs. Drivers for Uber and DoorDash need a higher tax deduction to deal with high gas prices, one US senator says in a new letter. Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, who represents Arizona, called on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday to raise the per-mile deduction that taxpayers can take if they use a car for business purposes. The deduction, which sits at 72.5 cents per mile, is key for gig workers who use cars to make deliveries and drive passengers. Gallego made the ask in a letter shared exclusively with Business Insider. The letter references gas prices, which have risen to an average of nearly $4 a gallon this month. Gallego blamed "President Trump's lack of planning with regard to the impacts of the Iran war on energy prices." "For many self-employed individuals who rely on driving, these prices are unsustainable," Gallego wrote. "Given the significant increase in gas prices, I urge the IRS to raise the standard mileage rate at a rate that proportionately reflects gas price increases." Rising gas prices after the US and Israel began a war with Iran have been a major concern for ride-hailing and delivery gig workers. Drivers for Uber and Lyft told Business Insider that the higher prices are eating into their profits, and some said they are getting more selective about which trips they take as a result. Some apps, including Uber and DoorDash, said this week they would start offering drivers their own incentives to offset the higher cost of gas. The benefits include both cash-back perks and some additional payouts based on miles traveled. Gallego's letter asks Bessent to increase the mileage deduction and make it retroactive to March 1, "when the major gas price increases began." The IRS has done it before. In 2022, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices higher, the IRS temporarily increased the deduction by 4 cents a mile. Gallego, then a member of the House of Representatives, and other democrats pushed for that increase. "In 2026, gas prices have risen rapidly over a shorter length of time," Gallego wrote in Thursday's letter, referencing the 2022 increase. Have a tip? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely. Read the original article on Business Insider

Mar 27, 202618 votes

A new bill takes aim at retailers' sweetheart deals with suppliers — and would extend to apps like Uber Eats

A bill Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy is introducing on Thursday takes aim at backroom deals that impact the prices of groceries and food delivery. Spencer Platt/Getty Images A new bill in Congress aims to prevent sweetheart pricing deals between companies, including on delivery apps. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut introduced the proposal on Thursday. It comes after allegations that Walmart and PepsiCo struck a deal to help the retailer undercut competitors on price. A new proposal in Congress would prevent companies from cutting special deals to keep prices high, including on your next Uber Eats order. The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act, set to be introduced on Thursday by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, would bolster existing laws meant to prevent large companies from striking better deals with suppliers than their smaller rivals. "For decades, corporations have been allowed to break the law and rig the system to make small businesses pay higher prices for the exact same products," Murphy said in a statement. The bill would make changes "providing both small businesses and federal regulators with a larger set of legal tools to punish corporations" when they strike such deals, he said. Murphy's bill comes after a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit unsealed last year, which alleged that soda- and snack-maker PepsiCo tried to help Walmart underprice its rivals. While it's common and legal for suppliers to offer discounts to large retailers that buy more than smaller ones, the FTC's lawsuit said PepsiCo went further by tracking what Walmart's rivals were charging for its products and trying to raise prices at those stores to defend Walmart's market position. The lawsuit, filed during the Biden administration, was dropped after President Donald Trump started his second term. Walmart and PepsiCo previously said their actions complied with the law and that they were trying to offer low prices to their customers. Murphy said Thursday's bill would prevent similar cooperation between big chain retailers and their product suppliers. The bill would also apply the same protections to services such as food delivery apps, including Uber Eats and DoorDash, preventing them from striking similar deals with large chains over smaller rivals. "Local shops and restaurants would no longer pay higher costs for services like delivery apps, point of sale systems, and credit card swipe fees," a summary of the bill provided by Murphy's office reads. Federal antitrust authorities haven't made price manipulation claims against delivery apps. These services charge restaurants and retailers fees to sell through their marketplaces. Uber Eats, which said earlier this month that it would increase its fees, charges up to 30% per order, for instance. Business Insider has reached out to the major delivery apps for comment on the bill. Murphy's bill would need support from multiple Republican senators to pass the GOP-led Senate. It has drawn support from groups that advocate for small businesses, including Small Business Rising, a coalition of about two dozen trade groups, such as the Independent Restaurant Coalition and the Independent Natural Food Retailers Association. The bill would update the Robinson-Patman Act, which became law in 1936 and was intended to prevent wholesalers from charging different prices to different businesses for the same goods. Since the act's passage, though, "legal loopholes, narrow interpretations, and burdensome requirements have made it challenging to enforce this important law," Small Business Rising wrote in a letter supporting Murphy's bill said. Do you have a story to share about delivery apps like Uber Eats or DoorDash? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely. Read the original article on Business Insider

Mar 19, 202612 votes

6 takeaways from Trump's State of the Union speech

Trump gave his State of the Union address on Tuesday. AP Photo/Matt Rourke Trump delivered his State of the Union address in Congress on Tuesday. Key takeaways include his comments on tariffs, lower consumer prices, and AI driving up energy costs. It was the longest speech in the country's recent history. President Donald Trump gave his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, the longest in US history. In a two-hour speech delivered to a joint session of Congress, Trump spotlighted several topics, including the military budget, consumer prices, and tariffs, touting wins from his economic agenda. It was light on new policy but heavy on Trump's greatest hits: lowering crime rates, abolishing DEI frameworks, and strengthening borders. He gave out medals to veterans, talked about voter ID fraud, and called for further restrictions on transgender rights. Here are our key takeaways from the 2026 State of the Union. 1. Lower consumer prices Trump spoke about how his administration had lowered consumer prices in his second term. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images Trump focused much of his speech on his economic agenda, touting his administration's effort to lower consumer prices. "From trade to healthcare, from energy to immigration, everything was stolen and rigged in order to drain the wealth out of the productive, hardworking people who make our country run," Trump said, adding, "Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world." The president blamed Democratic lawmakers for high inflation rates, which remain above the Federal Reserve's 2% goal. He said his policies have lowered the cost of housing, healthcare, and energy — though the financial reality is more nuanced for many Americans. Trump spoke about tax breaks in his One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump Accounts, his recently-unveiled plan to increase healthcare cost transparency, and his efforts to make mortgages more accessible. He also defended the White House's tariff policies, despite what he called a "disappointing" ruling by the Supreme Court last week. One thing is clear: Trump wants America to think of the economy as "roaring." 2. AI companies should shoulder energy costs A general view of the Google Midlothian Data Center. Ron Jenkins/Getty Images Trump said energy demands from AI data centers could "unfairly" drive up utility costs on Americans. He proposed a "rate-payer protection pledge" that would require tech companies to provide their own power needs and "build their own power plants." "We're telling the major tech companies that they have the obligation to provide for their own power needs," Trump said. "They can build their own power plants as part of their factory so that no one's prices will go up, and in many cases, prices of electricity will go down for the community," he said. He added that the US has an "old grid" which could "never handle" the demand. 3. Trump targets affordability through tax policies Trump spoke about affordability during SOTU. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images Trump mentioned a few tax policy levers aimed at relieving pressure on US households, including a no tax on tips or overtime, a tax incentive for consumers who buy American-made cars, and tax-free investment accounts named after the president. In those proposals, Trump cast affordability as an income-side problem that could be addressed through tax relief rather than mechanisms such as direct price controls. 4. Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs Trump spoke about the SCOTUS ruling that his tariffs were illegal, in the presence of the Justices. Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images Trump unsurprisingly praised his tariff strategy as a catch-all solution, going as far as to say that it could replace the US income tax system. He said tariffs were a major revenue engine bringing in "hundreds of billions of dollars" that could also bring in jobs and investments to the US. He also called it a diplomatic lever he has used to settle wars, and said that the revenue from tariffs could "substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax." Trump also called the recent Supreme Court ruling that blocked his sweeping policy "unfortunate" in front of the Justices who customarily attend the SOTU address. Present at the address were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Of those present at SOTU, Roberts, Barrett, and Kagan had voted that the Trump tariffs were illegal. 5. Congress should pass the Stop Insider Trading Act, Trump says Trump called for the STOCK act to be enacted. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images Trump made statements in support of the Stop Insider Trading Act during his speech, saying that members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to "corruptly profit from using insider information." This is a GOP-sponsored bill introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, which would place restrictions on stock trading on lawmakers and their spouses. The moment drew bipartisan applause, which the president called out, saying he was "impressed" that Democratic lawmakers were in support of it. Debates about congressional insider trading and violations of the STOCK Act — a federal law designed to stop conflicts of interest and insider trading — pre-date the second Trump administration. 6. A trillion-dollar military budget Trump said his administration had approved a trillion-dollar military budget. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Trump said the administration had approved a trillion-dollar military budget for next year. "We have the most powerful military on earth. I rebuilt the military in my first term. We're going to continue to do so. Also, we just approved a trillion-dollar budget; we have no choice," he said in the speech. This is lower than the figure Trump floated in January. In a Truth Social post in January, he said he had decided to raise the military budget in 2027 from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion to protect the US during "very troubled and dangerous times." He said the larger budget would be financed by tariff revenue for 2027. Read the original article on Business Insider

Feb 25, 202619 votes

Here's all the free money Trump's talked about giving Americans during his second term — and where it all stands

Trump has promised bonuses to certain government employees and floated checks for certain Americans throughout his second term. Doug Mills/The New York Times/Getty Images Trump has promised free money to Americans multiple times during his second term. That includes bonuses for certain government employees and checks for everyday Americans. Here are all of the times he's proposed giving money to people, and where each idea stands. President Donald Trump really wants to send you a check. Throughout his second term, Trump has pledged to send Americans money in various ways, including tariff rebate checks and bonuses to select government employees. Some of that free money is actually becoming a reality: Congress created "Trump Accounts" as part of the "Big Beautiful Bill," which will provide tax-free federal grants of $1,000 to children born in the next few years. Others remain elusive, or have fallen by the wayside. Remember the DOGE dividend? Trump also sent out checks during his first term, but under much different circumstances. As part of two successive COVID-era stimulus bills, the federal government sent Americans $1,200 in the spring of 2020 and $600 in the winter, shortly before the president left office. Trump's signature appeared on those checks, which was a source of controversy during a presidential election year. Here are all of the instances of free money that Trump has promised or floated during his second term: $5,000 DOGE dividends Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. Valerie Plesch/The Washington Post via Getty Images In February, investor James Fishback floated the idea of sending $5,000 "DOGE Dividend" checks to almost 80 million taxpaying American households. Those checks would have been paid for by spending cuts achieved by DOGE, the government efficiency office led by Elon Musk at the time. The idea quickly caught Musk's attention, and Trump eventually said that the idea was under consideration. But there were some problems. For one, the $5,000 figure was based on Musk's original estimate of $2 trillion in savings, which never materialized. Republicans in Congress also balked at the idea, saying they preferred to see a reduction in the national debt. "I mean, politically, that would be great for us," House Speaker Mike Johnson said in February 2025. "But if you think about our core principles, right? Fiscal responsibility is what we do." The idea eventually faded, though Trump's political operation has continued to float it in fundraising emails. $2,000 tariff rebate checks Shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles in December. Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images While defending tariffs in a November Truth Social post, Trump said his administration would pay "everyone" except "high-income people" a dividend of at least $2,000. Although Trump's Truth Social posts are not actual government orders, the statement drew attention from citizens and his colleagues in Washington, D.C. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published an analysis the following day, stating that there would not be enough tariff revenue to support the idea. "With our national debt quickly approaching an all-time high and annual budget deficits approaching $2 trillion per year, it is imperative that policymakers focus on actually reducing deficits and putting debt on a downward path," the committee wrote. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also pushed back on Trump's dividend remark during an ABC News interview, saying there were no plans to spend tariff revenue. Trump would also need approval from Congress to pass such an order, which seems unlikely given the lack of enthusiasm from Republican lawmakers. "We're facing a deficit this year around $2 trillion," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told reporters. "I think whatever revenue we get, from whatever source, ought to go to try and bring down those deficits." Trump's proposed timeline for the tariff checks has also shifted. In November, he floated mid-2026 for the checks. But in an interview with the New York Times in January, he said it could come "toward the end of the year." He's also dismissed the idea that he needs an act of Congress to send the checks, including in a briefing with reporters at the White House before his trip to Davos. "I don't think we would have to go the Congress route," Trump said. "But you know, we'll find out." $10,000 bonuses for air traffic controllers An air traffic control tower at Orlando International Airport on November 7, 2025. Paul Hennessy/Anadolu via Getty Images The longest government shutdown in US history began on October 1, spanning 43 days while Democrats and Republicans in Congress negotiated a new budget. The fallout forced the government to furlough hundreds of thousands of federal workers, while others — such as air traffic controllers — had to continue working without pay ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday rush. Air traffic controllers received their first $0 paychecks in late October. Some of them stopped showing up for work, sparking a staffing shortage and an onslaught of flight delays and cancellations. In November, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the shutdown put air traffic controllers in a difficult spot. "They're confronted with a decision: Do I put food on my kids' table, do I put gas in the car, do I pay my rent, or do I go to work and not get paid? They're making decisions," Duffy said. "I've encouraged them all to come to work. I want them to come to work, but they're making life decisions that they shouldn't have to make." Trump, meanwhile, criticized the air traffic controllers who had not shown up for work during the shutdown in a November Truth Social post. "For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU," Trump wrote. He said air traffic controllers who didn't take time off during the shutdown were "GREAT PATRIOTS" and he would recommend a $10,000 bonus for each of them. Duffy shared more details in an X post, writing that 776 air traffic controllers would receive $10,000 bonus checks in early December. "Santa's coming to town a little early," Duffy wrote. $1,000 for Trump Accounts Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" into law on July 4, implementing new tax policies and changes to federal programs, including SNAP. The bill also introduced so-called Trump Accounts, which are specialized retirement accounts for US children. They were previously referred to as "money account for growth and advancement," or MAGA accounts. The Trump administration said children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, who open Trump Accounts, would receive a one-time $1,000 tax-free federal grant. US children with a valid Social Security number are eligible. Friends, family, and others are allowed to deposit another $5,000 tax-free into those accounts. The White House said several CEOs agreed to invest in Trump Accounts, including Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon. In December, Michael and Susan Dell pledged to invest $6.25 billion to support Invest America, the federal program that spearheaded Trump Accounts. Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio has also pledged to deposit $250 into the Trump Accounts of 300,000 Connecticut children. Some large companies, like BlackRock, have offered a $1,000 match for the children of eligible employees. At an event in Toledo, Ohio, in January, Vice President JD Vance joked that the accounts played a role in his and Second Lady Usha Vance's decision to have a fourth child, which is due in July. "You know, we were debating having a 4th child, and I said, 'honey, you know the new Trump accounts and the increased child tax credit are coming online, we got to take advantage of this stuff," Vance said. $1,776 "Warrior dividends" for troops US Army troops listen as Trump speaks at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on June 10, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images During an economic address to Americans in December, Trump said his administration would provide bonus checks to members of the military before Christmas. In a subsequent news release, the newly rebranded Department of War said Trump is giving service members bonus checks to "thank them for their military service and to commemorate the 250 years the US military has been defending the nation." The checks, dubbed the "Warrior Dividend," are each worth $1,776. "Money to pay for the Warrior Dividend came earlier this year as part of the president's One Big Beautiful Bill. Approximately 1.28 million active-duty and 174,000 reserve component military members will receive the dividend as a nontaxable supplement to their regular monthly housing allowance," the Department of War said. The department said eligible service members can expect to see the payment before December 20. Direct payments for healthcare Trump flanked by medical professionals in the Oval Office in December. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Trump also wants to give Americans free money for healthcare — though the details are scarce. In January, the White House released a framework for "The Great Healthcare Plan." It includes a provision to stop "sending big insurance companies billions in extra taxpayer-funded subsidy payments and instead send that money directly to eligible Americans to allow them to buy the health insurance of their choice." Trump has repeatedly touted the idea, though it's unclear exactly how it would work or how much money would be involved. "In other words, we cut out the insurance companies. They're making a fortune," Trump said at a White House event promoting the plan. "We pay the money directly to the people." One plan introduced by GOP senators, the Health Care Freedom For Patients Act, would include payments of up to $1,500 into health savings accounts for people who earn less than 700% of the federal poverty level. Meanwhile, Affordable Care Act subsidies expired at the end of 2025, with no clear path for extending them. As a result, premiums for many Americans are skyrocketing, and enrollment is falling. Read the original article on Business Insider

Jan 24, 202619 votes

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet

"There's enormous issues for our economy and for our democracy that have got to be dealt with," Sanders said. "And I feel we're not ready to do that." Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images Bernie Sanders has called for a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction. He told Business Insider last week that he plans to introduce legislation on the issue soon. Few progressives have lined up behind Sanders's call, but concerns about data centers are growing. Sen. Bernie Sanders wants a nationwide pause on AI data center construction. Few of his colleagues are willing to go there yet. "In terms of the actual policy prescription, it's something that I haven't made a determination yet on," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider. The Vermont senator and two-time presidential candidate first made the call in December, saying in a video posted to X that a national moratorium would "give democracy a chance to catch up with the transformative changes" that the technology is bringing. Sanders told Business Insider last week that he plans to introduce legislation to back up his call soon. "There's enormous issues for our economy and for our democracy that have got to be dealt with," Sanders said. "And I feel we're not ready to do that." But his proposal is unlikely to become reality, given GOP control of Washington. "I mean, this Congress isn't going to do that," Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin told Business Insider. "He's pointing out the right problems." Republicans have been generally dismissive of Sanders's idea. Even Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a major critic of the AI industry, signaled he wouldn't go as far. "If these AI companies want to build these data centers and local folks want to give them permits for it, I mean, that's up to local voters," Hawley told Business Insider. A handful of Sanders's progressive allies are backing him up. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota told Business Insider that a moratorium "would be a good idea," while Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan issued a full-throated endorsement in a post on X. "I fully support the call for a national AI data center moratorium," Tlaib wrote. And while few Democrats have fully endorsed the idea, it's spurring a conversation within the party about the impact of data centers and AI. "I don't want a moratorium on data centers but Bernie is right that we are sleepwalking past risks which alarm even the optimists," Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote on X last month. "What we do know is that these AI data centers are just uncontrollably jacking up people's energy costs," Ocasio-Cortez told Business Insider. "There are a lot of problems that arise from these data centers, and I think that they certainly should not be getting the blank check from Congress." By contrast, the Trump administration has been broadly supportive of the AI industry and the associated data center boom, including taking steps to limit states' ability to enact AI regulation. "Bernie makes clear that the debate over AI is not about states rights or affordability," White House Crypto and AI Czar David Sacks wrote on X in December. "He would block new data centers even if states want them & they generate their own power. It's about stopping progress completely so China wins the AI race." Yet even the administration has come to recognize that data centers are engendering local resistance, in large part due to rising electricity costs. Last week, President Donald Trump declared that he wanted Big Tech firms to "pay their own way" on data centers, with AI companies footing more of the bill for the electricity their facilities consume. "I never want Americans to pay higher Electricity bills because of Data Centers," Trump wrote on Truth Social. And on Friday, the administration and a group of governors called on a major power grid operator to hold a new emergency power auction amid rising costs driven by AI data centers. Read the original article on Business Insider

Jan 19, 202613 votes

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet

Jan 19, 202617 votes

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet

Jan 19, 202620 votes

Search

Scores for Business Insider

Credibility

Political lean

Originality

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Top topics

Who they cover

Most covered

Article tone

Related sources

Challenges to these scores

Articles served from businessinsider.com

From Venezuela to Iran, major operations have kept US Navy supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford away from home for almost 10 months

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

Data center executives fret over the industry's increasingly toxic public image

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

11 times US presidents launched military operations without Congressional approval

Soccer fans spending hundreds on World Cup tickets have another problem: sky-high transit fares

This billionaire is the odds-on favorite to become California's governor after Swalwell dropped out

What bets are lawmakers and staffers making on prediction markets? They don't have to say.

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

Maine could be the first state to ban new data centers. These 11 other states tried and failed.

A senator is pressing the IRS to raise the mileage deduction that Uber drivers rely on to offset spiking gas prices

A new bill takes aim at retailers' sweetheart deals with suppliers — and would extend to apps like Uber Eats

6 takeaways from Trump's State of the Union speech

Here's all the free money Trump's talked about giving Americans during his second term — and where it all stands

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet

Bernie Sanders's AI data center pause isn't catching on in Congress yet