South Korea’s Chip Output Drops For First Time In 14 Months Amid Slowdown At Samsung
Concerns over the stability of the artificial intelligence bubble intensified this week.
Advanced Micro Devices released a disappointing earnings report on Tuesday, revealing slower-than-expected growth in AI sales. Adding to the uncertainty, Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer, reported overnight about uninspiring demand for advanced chips in mobile devices and PCs.
The largest takeaway from Samsung’s third-quarter earnings report was an underwhelming performance in the company’s chip division, posting a surprise drop from the previous quarter. At the same time, overall profit was marginally higher than Wall Street estimates. Also, it saw smartphone sales slowing by the end of the year and only increasing by about 1% in 2025, despite the hype surrounding AI-enabled smartphones and other handheld devices.
In addition to company-level developments, new data from South Korea’s chip manufacturing base shows that production fell in September for the first time in 14 months—yet more troubling signs showing the AI boom cools.
Nationwide semiconductor production slid 3% in September, a sharp reversal after they gained 11% a month earlier, according to data released Thursday by the government statistical office. The growth in shipments also slowed to 0.7% from 17% in August.
Still, inventory levels showed stockpiles continue to be worked through at a rapid clip, as they declined 41.5% from a year earlier in September. The numbers paint a picture of an industry that may be cooling gradually as demand for memory chips peaks out.
South Korea’s chip production is viewed as a proxy for global chip demand because these components are used in a wide range of electronics, from smartphones to servers to automobiles. Given the hype around AI adoption from phones to computers, this week’s news from AMD, Samsung, and now South Korea’s chip base could be symptoms of a cooling bubble. Certainly not the headlines chip bulls want to see.
The United States is days away from a portentous presidential election that, however it turns out, promises to leave around half the nation believing that catastrophe has been narrowly averted and the rest believing that all is lost. Desperate hopes and apocalyptic fears suffuse the electorate. Significant swathes of the right and left – especially among the intellectual class – believe that the other side is dishonest, wicked, and bent on overthrowing democracy in America. This tendency to loathe those in the rival political camp presents an overriding threat to the nation.
To endure, a rights-protecting or liberal democracy needs citizens who regard themselves as engaged in a common enterprise. They must share a language. They must respect basic moral and political principles. They must take pride in their nation’s accomplishments while facing up to and correcting their country’s flaws by upholding the best in the nation’s traditions and heeding justice’s enduring imperatives. They must trust that as they generally follow society’s written and unwritten rules, so too will others. And they must partake of a broad commitment – that receives expression in the exercise of toleration and civility – to securing a freedom for each consistent with a like freedom for all. Otherwise, democracy will dissolve into authoritarianism as citizens lose the ability to cooperate in nurturing their communities, maintaining a prosperous economy, and protecting their equal rights.
Seeing themselves as engaged in a common enterprise can be a challenge for citizens of a rights-protecting democracy. That’s because rights and democracy encourage individuals – and the groups to which they belong – to go their own ways. Endowed with differing abilities and dispositions, free citizens develop distinctive interests, hold a diversity of opinions, and pursue happiness in their own manner.
To preserve unity within this diversity, rights-protecting democracies must educate citizens about their common enterprise. That common enterprise consists in large measure, citizens must learn, in maintaining a political order that enables individuals and families – and the associations they form – to disagree peacefully and even productively not only about ordinary public policy but also about ultimate questions concerning moral excellence and the path to salvation.
A rising challenge to America’s common enterprise stems from adamant calls to discard the Constitution. The formal crystallization of the country’s dedication to equal liberty under law, the Constitution – its premises, operations, and goals – is permanently open to discussion. But instead of arguing about the interpretation of this or that constitutional provision and rather than debating schools of constitutional jurisprudence, prominent progressive voices increasingly condemn the Constitution as a whole. To take one conspicuous example, Harvard Law School Professor Ryan D. Doerfler and Yale Law School Professor Samuel Moyn argued in the New York Times in “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed” that to save democracy we must “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Leading members of the so-called “new right” – a loose association of national conservatives and common-good conservatives – join, in effect if not intent, progressives in repudiating the Constitution. Self-styled “postliberal” conservatives identify classical liberalism as the root cause of America’s moral, political, cultural, economic, and national-security woes. But the Constitution – which seeks to secure the unalienable rights affirmed by the Declaration of Independence through limited government grounded in the consent of the governed – is steeped in classical liberalism. Consequently, the new right’s attacks on classical liberalism make common cause with progressives who wish to rid the country of the Constitution.
Against the enthusiasms for overcoming the Constitution, eminent conservatives maintain that recovery of the Constitution’s underlying political theory and its judicious design of primary political institutions can avert the crisis of democracy in America. These conservatives tend to be steeped in history and political philosophy, ancient and modern. They are disposed to support former president Donald Trump without disregarding his shortcomings. And they are well represented in “Democracy in America: a symposium,” which appears in the New Criterion’s October issue.
Embracing its responsibility as a journal of arts, letters, and the larger public interest – and as a leading publication of thoughtful conservatism – The New Criterion addresses head-on the central issues. In his introduction to the symposium, magazine editor Roger Kimball argues that democracy in America confronts a “siege” that has been gathering momentum for more than 15 years. “Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, followed by the incomprehensible victory of Donald Trump,” writes Kimball, “has radicalized and emboldened the Left.”
In its emboldened radicalism, Kimball argues, the left has combined in a single indictment the contention that Trump aims to institute despotism and the accusation that the Constitution undermines democracy and subverts the common good. The proof that our Constitution is anti-democratic and dysfunctional, progressive intellectuals contend, is that it allowed Trump to win election as president once and may do so again.
In contrast, the contributors to The New Criterion symposium maintain that a principal source of the nation’s ills is the disparagement of, and departures from, the Constitution. The contributors highlight the spirit of liberty under law that animates the Constitution and the structure of government by which it maintains freedom. Inspired by Tocqueville’s 19th-century masterpiece, “Democracy in America,” they also stress such non-governmental supports of freedom as family, faith, civic association, liberal education, and the moral and intellectual virtues.
In “Our Athenian American democracy” my Hoover Institution colleague Victor Davis Hanson argues that contrary to the Constitution’s design – and notwithstanding progressive complaints about democracy’s demise – the United States has embraced, to the detriment of freedom, a purer form of democracy. In its classical form – direct rule of the people – democracy lacked checks on majority will. Indeed, “there was never an Athenian effort to guarantee the rights of the individual against the state,” writes Hanson. “That idea only arrived in the Middle Ages, when it was embodied in Magna Carta, and it later figured prominently in the European Enlightenment and the foundation of the American Republic.” While members of America’s founding generation quarreled vociferously about proper constitutional limits, they were all but unanimous in believing that formal constraints on legislation, executive action, and judicial authority were crucial to the protection of individual rights. Hence, argues Hanson, “the greatest threat to the republican system of the United States may well be the efforts of Washington bureaucrats and agencies to destroy some 236 years of constitutional checks and balances and the political customs that have evolved along with them.”
In “Tocqueville vs. progressive democracy” Daniel Mahoney, professor emeritus at Assumption University, agrees with Hanson that progressive conceptions of democracy subvert the basic rights and fundamental freedoms on which the American experiment in ordered liberty rests. That’s in part, argues Mahoney, because progressive conceptions of democracy incorporate highly partisan positions that erode the habits of heart and mind necessary for self-government. These include antipathy to tradition, particularly traditional views about religion and sex; preference for cosmopolitanism mixed with distaste for patriotic nationalism; and celebration of self-creation combined with disparagement of self-restraint, honor, and duty.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow James Piereson contends in “The Washington octopus” that the current strife between the people and the elites in American reflects the old “conflict between ‘country’ and ‘court’ parties” that marked 18th-century politics in Britain and America. Like the court party, contemporary progressives endeavor to direct citizens’ lives from the capital city. Like the country party, many on the right today want to preserve, consistent with basic rights and fundamental freedoms, local control over local affairs. Reformers, argues Piereson, must reverse the concentration of power in Washington built up over decades owing to FDR’s New Deal, post-World War II national-security demands, and LBJ’s Great Society. For starters, he proposes transferring elements of the federal bureaucracy out of Washington – relocating, say, the Department of the Interior to “Montana, Idaho, Utah, or the Dakotas” and the FBI or the Department of Education to “Kansas City, Wichita, Dallas, or any number of other cities.”
In “Tocqueville’s limitations” Claremont Institute Fellow Glenn Elmers offers a friendly corrective to the great Frenchman, who understood equality as primarily a “sociological force” fueled by a passion to level human affairs. In contrast, America’s founders viewed equality in terms of formal rights that must be institutionalized. A return to equal rights under law, argues Elmers, would limit contemporary managerial elites’ schemes to shift power from the people to federal bureaucrats in Washington. This would hinder the capital city’s imposition on the nation of versions of equity and social justice that seem to many ordinary people neither equitable nor just.
Confronting what he regards as the progressive juggernaut, Kimball concludes “that conservatism has three main choices.” The first, “outright surrender,” is dishonorable. So is the second – “the dhimmitude of the well-pressed but housebroken Right that exchanges its pampered place on the plantation for political irrelevance.” Accordingly, Kimball opts for the third – “the perhaps paradoxical option of what we might call Alinskyite conservatism, after the canny left-wing activist Saul Alinsky.” It “eschews the quietism of surrender for the activism of what Donald Trump calls ‘winning.’”
The activist option aimed at winning is preferable provided two conditions are met. Activism must revolve around the energetic defense of constitutional essentials. And winning must signify the restoration of a common enterprise to secure the liberty under law that is the enduring promise of rights-protecting democracy in America.
Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on X @BerkowitzPeter.
LOS ANGELES—As police across California crack down on illegal street racing, takeovers, and sideshows, technology companies are marketing new surveillance tools to meet the demand—prompting questions about the implications for privacy rights and Fourth Amendment protections.
In the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where incidents have become increasingly brazen and violent in recent years, often drawing hundreds of attendees and overwhelming police, agencies already rely on planes, drones, and automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras as they aim to reduce the risk to first responders.
And they’ve begun to see results.
On Oct. 25 in the Bay Area, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) reported the seizure of 16 vehicles that had been involved in two separate takeovers a month prior. Officers couldn’t reach the center of the sideshow before it moved to another location, but they collected video evidence from cameras placed around the Bay Bridge. That led investigators to a list of vehicles, allowing them to request seizures orders from a judge.
Armed with these technologies, CHP officers sent to Oakland to crack down on illegal sideshows and rising violent and retail crime have seized more than 2,000 stolen vehicles since February.
And a controversial surveillance system used by police to detect gunshots and fireworks is now being remarketed as a tool to listen for the sounds of illegal street racing, takeovers and sideshows—like screeching tires—according to an Oct. 23 announcement from Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that leases surveillance systems to thousands of law enforcement agencies across the United States.
Audio detection offers an additional angle that can be integrated with existing camera networks and analytics, which Flock said in its announcement will provide a “deeper layer of insight, enabling [police] to track repeat offenders and analyze patterns linked to sideshows.”
When the cameras mounted at intersections are used in conjunction with audio detectors, the analytics system generates a report that lists vehicles, ranked by frequency, near confirmed shootings, fireworks, sideshows or takeovers, according to the company.
The selling point is that the AI-powered system identifies patterns nearly instantly that would typically take hours or days for humans.
The newly reconfigured technology raises old questions about the balance between privacy and public safety, which civil rights groups have already been litigating—in the courts and in the public sphere—for years.
For critics, the deployment of such technologies is part of a long march, a stealth encroachment on constitutional rights that has accelerated in the years since 9/11.
“Some of these are mass surveillance technologies that shouldn’t be permitted to operate in a democratic society,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Epoch Times. “We don’t watch everybody all the time, just in case somebody does something wrong somewhere.”
Technologies like Flock’s cameras and audio detection devices, mounted at public intersections throughout the country in an increasingly dense network, raise questions about the “boundary between what can be done in today’s technology and what should be done,” Stanley said.
According to a February 2020 report by the state auditor, nearly all of California’s law enforcement agencies already use surveillance cameras that automatically read and report license plate data along with other details of the vehicle, time, and location.
These typically use infrared cameras to read license numbers and feed them into databases, but some cameras, like Flock’s, can capture more than license plates—things like car color and make, as well as small identifying details.
According to Flock’s website, police departments in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, and Louisiana are among those already using the company’s Raven system for gunshot detection, which the company claims is 90 percent accurate in identifying gunshots.
Accuracy Claims
Various reports have called such claims into question—including a May annual review by the City of San Jose, which initially found around half of alerts were confirmed to be gunshots, with around a third being false positives. After some adjustments to the system, the confirmed number went up to nearly 80 percent.
Critics argue the tendency of acoustic gunshot detection toward false positives can put people at risk, for example by sending police to a location expecting gunfire where there are innocent people. Such technologies can also record human voices, which law enforcement agencies have used in court.
“As is so often the case with police surveillance technologies, a device initially deployed for one purpose (here, to detect gunshots) has been expanded to another purpose (to spy on conversations with sensitive microphones),” said the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit focused on the intersection of civil rights and digital technology.
Some cities have canceled contracts with Flock or similar providers after analysis revealed disappointing results.
A 2021 investigation of Flock competitor ShotSpotter found the acoustic gunshot detection system generated more than 40,000 dead-end deployments in Chicago in less than two years, with the vast majority of alerts turning up no evidence of gunfire or related crime.
The Champaign Police Department in Illinois last year opted not to renew its contract with Flock after results fell short of marketing claims. Data obtained by local journalists showed 59 out of 64 alerts were “unfounded,” with 21 of those likely caused by fireworks.
“To date, the system has not yet lived up to performance expectations, including misidentifying some sounds—such as fireworks or a vehicle backfire—as possible gunfire,” a police official told CU Citizen Access.
Flock did not offer an estimate of accuracy in its announcement of the Raven systems repurposed to listen for vehicular chaos, nor did it respond to an inquiry about how many communities use Raven to detect the sounds of street takeovers. But other media have reported at least two Bay Area law enforcement agencies are already using it.
Cameras that read license plates and microphones that listen for gunshots have been around for decades, but in recent years, California municipalities have expanded their surveillance networks—and rapidly developing AI-powered technology is adding an unprecedented accelerant.
On Oct. 22, the San Diego Sheriff’s Department announced plans to install 60 additional cameras in unincorporated areas, adding to five cities that have already used them with “significant investigative success,” including solving homicides, kidnappings, vehicle theft, burglaries, and assaults.
Nodding to privacy and data security concerns, the Department said it has implemented “strict protocols,” including adherence to Senate Bill 34, state legislation from 2015 that regulates how data is used, stored, and shared, and requires regular audits to ensure compliance. San Diego keeps ALPR data for a maximum of one year unless it is being used in ongoing investigations.
Earlier this year, San Francisco installed 400 ALPR cameras, and Oakland, in partnership with the California Highway Patrol, installed 480 Flock cameras that read license plates and other identifying details.
“When we’re talking about car break-ins and car theft … when we’re talking about sideshows and some of the other issues that have happened in our city, automatic license plate readers can play an invaluable role in helping us to track some of the perpetrators of these crimes and hold them accountable,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said at the time.
In some California cities, police can now also access private security camera networks if neighbors grant them permission.
For example, Sacramento currently has 809 cameras registered in a program that allows people to register their cameras with the police department, which lets investigators know where the camera is and request video evidence in case of an incident. Businesses and residents can also choose to “integrate” their cameras, giving the police department direct, live access to the feed.
And “real-time crime centers” in major cities across the United States already combine these modalities. Last month, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department opened its first center in Agoura Hills, and LAPD plans to open multiple in the coming months.
These centers can tap into license plate readers and existing cameras at intersections, as well as footage from private cameras if businesses or residents allow it.
Citing low staffing levels and rising crime—including 50 car burglaries across the course of a single weekend in one L.A. City Council District—an LAPD report to the Board of Police Commissioners cited “an acute need to explore new measures, like the use of technology, to mitigate these impacts and improve the department’s response to crime.”
Privacy Regulations
In an April memo, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said the “crime-fighting cameras” installed at Oakland intersections would protect privacy by limiting data storage to 28 days and not disclosing footage to third parties beyond other law enforcement agencies, while complying with recent bulletins from the California Attorney General’s office outlining state law that governs data collection, storage and use, including SB 34.
Police can use ALPRs to match license plates with those on a “hot list” of known offenders. But even if they don’t match, the data is still stored in a database, prompting questions about how it is protected and used.
The ACLU raised this issue in a 2013 report titled “You Are Being Tracked,” noting that the readers “would pose few civil liberties risks if they only checked plates against hot lists and these hot lists were implemented soundly.” But the networked systems store the compiled data, not just license plates of vehicles that generate hits.
The “enormous databases” of motorists’ location information that are created as a result, and often pooled among regional systems, are often retained permanently and shared with little to no restriction, the report argued.
The 2020 state auditor report found that while most California law enforcement agencies use the technology, “few have appropriate usage and privacy policies in place.”
The report looked at four agencies—the Fresno and Los Angeles police departments, and the Sacramento and Marin County sheriff’s offices. All of them accumulated a large number of images in their ALPR systems, but most of those did not relate to criminal investigations.
For example, 99.9 percent of the 320 million images Los Angeles stored at the time were for vehicles that were not on a hot list when the photo was taken.
And according to a Sacramento grand jury investigation, a vast ALPR system deployed by the county’s sheriffs department and city’s police departments couldn’t distinguish between cars used for criminal activities and those operated legally.
“And we subsequently learned that both the Sheriff’s Office and Sacramento Police Department have been lax in following state law regarding how ALPR data is shared with other law enforcement entities,” the report said.
In fact, the investigation found that those departments regularly shared license plate data out of state, which is prohibited by SB 34.
In an emailed statement, the California attorney general’s office told The Epoch Times such technological tools “are helpful in deterring and investigating crime, serving both to prevent wrongdoing and ensure accountability for those who violate the law,” but that they must be used with “the utmost respect for ethical and legal standards.”
The attorney general’s office said that recently it has been working with local agencies “to ensure that they are using ALPR systems for their intended use.”
4th Amendment Concerns
A federal lawsuit filed Oct. 21 against the use of Flock’s surveillance network in Norfolk, Virginia, alleges the city is violating Fourth Amendment rights by tracking “the whole of a person’s public movements,” thus amounting to a search.
The City of Norfolk gathers information about “everyone who drives past any of its 172 cameras to facilitate investigating crimes,“ and in doing so, ”violates the long-standing societal expectation that people’s movements and associations over an extended period are their business alone,” the complaint states.
With all of this done without a warrant, the complaint continues, “This is exactly the type of ‘too permeating police surveillance’ the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent.”
Flock released a statement to media countering that Fourth Amendment case law shows license plate readers don’t constitute a warrantless search because they photograph cars in public, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and case precedent in numerous states has upheld the use of evidence from ALPRs as constitutional without requiring a warrant.
Jay Stanley, the ACLU policy analyst, noted courts are still in the relatively early stages of grappling with these technologies.
“But courts have also made a number of rulings that sweeping surveillance technology is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. … I think that automatic license plate readers raise a lot of the same concerns that the Supreme Court addressed in some of the big privacy cases in recent years,” he said.
Among those are United States v. Jones, in which the government tracked someone’s vehicle with a GPS tracker without a warrant for 28 days, subsequently securing a conviction with the resulting data; the court held that such constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Previously a lower court had ruled the data was admissible because the suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy when his car was on public streets.
And in Carpenter v. United States, the court held that acquisition of a suspect’s cell-site records—historical location data from cell phone providers, obtained without a warrant—constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
“When you have enough license plate readers out there, it becomes tantamount to being tracked with a GPS. And so it raises the same issues that the court has already ruled on,” Stanley said.
He suggested that communities need time to digest these technologies and their potential consequences before adopting them at such speed and scale.
“Communities need to decide whether they want to allow the police departments that serve them to have the new powers these technologies convey and whether they’re even effective at reducing crime and ultimately making communities a better place—which is the whole point of law enforcement and government,” he said.
Watch: DC Begins Boarding Up Ahead Of Election Over Social Unrest Fears
Washington, DC authorities are hardening security for potential social unrest after next week’s presidential election. With four days remaining, workers have been busy boarding up government buildings and retail stores with plywood.
“Work crews have begun covering up the windows of buildings and stores near the White House as the election comes down to the final week,” DC resident Andrew Leyden wrote on X.
Work crews have begun covering up the windows of buildings and stores near the White House as the election comes down to the final week. pic.twitter.com/d29CAEq0QS
Leyden posted a video on YouTube of himself riding around on a bike near the White House complex, showing the various buildings being boarded up.
In the video’s description, he wrote, “When there is a threat of civil unrest, these landlords cover their windows, much like you do when a hurricane is coming.”
“We do expect the Capitol complex to be much more hardened,” DC Mayor Muriel Bowser said last week, who was quoted by Axios. She told residents to be “flexible” as demonstrations and detours emerge.
The ultra-hardening of security around and near the White House might be preparation for a possible Trump victory. With far-left corporate media outlets pushing ‘Trump Nazi,’ ‘Trump Hitler,’ and ‘Trump fascist’ rhetoric nonstop ahead of the election, this hate speech propaganda could certainly fuel leftist radicals to become violently unhinged if Trump wins next week.
Rosie O’Donnell has completely lost her mind and says she needs more meds to deal with the election. pic.twitter.com/GQ5eNIsnXi
A new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey showed that most Americans are somewhat worried about social unrest after or during next Tuesday night’s election results.
Ohio Rep. (D) Greg Landsman told Axios that even as September approached, security was “preparing in a way that is very different from what has happened in the past,” adding, “I had never seen anything like it.”
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is more than the latest buzzword. It’s rising rapidly, permeating across industries, and is already present in our daily lives. Netflix uses AI to personalize recommendations to users, 50% of global organizations reported adopting AI in at least one business area in 2022, and more than half of Americans use voice assistants to receive information.
Behind this tech revolution are electricity-thirsty data centers dotting America’s landscape, processing AI, crypto, e-commerce, and cloud computing. The collective rise in demand to our power grid is something not seen in decades.
An AI Google search, for example, needs 10 times the amount of energy as a normal Google search, and all of the current data centers worldwide combined consume more power than all but 16 countries.
AI alone is expected to add 20% more to US electricity demand by 2030 and Goldman Sachs projects natural gas will cover 60% of demand. Our grid is bound to hit a limit in its current state, according to Microsoft leadership. To provide the steady, reliable, and affordable power these facilities need, natural gas-powered electricity is increasingly the obvious choice.
As the second-largest natural gas production state, Pennsylvania is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this opportunity quickly, benefit from new job creation and investment, and power our high-tech future if we collectively embrace natural gas as part of that solution. Doing so would be welcome news for trade unions and high-tech professionals alike, alongside local communities who benefit from new tax revenues.
It’s clear Vice President Kamala Harris’ thinking has evolved on energy, along with other Democrats across the country.
Harris had a front row seat as American natural gas rapidly secured our allies abroad against the fallout of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And she understands how critical natural gas is in achieving her Administration’s goals of reshoring critical manufacturing jobs, alongside renewables, that benefit America’s heartland in states like Pennsylvania. Notably natural gas, more than renewables, is the primary source of America’s world-leading carbon reductions over the last two decades and will continue to be a low-carbon solution deployed abroad to replace coal and fight climate change.
It is this debate on natural gas: balancing economic strength, technology, global competitiveness, staying ahead of China, and fighting climate change, where Harris can cement her political position as a sensible Democrat who uniquely understands Pennsylvania.
The Keystone State is already home to 71 data centers, with hubs in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and has potential to attract even more given its proximity to the Marcellus Shale gas formations that have led Pennsylvania’s energy revolution in recent years. Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has taken notice of this potential, speaking at an AI forum at Carnegie Mellon this month.
Data centers that power AI are so energy-intensive and desperate to meet these power demands that a mothballed nuclear plant once set for decommissioning, Three Mile Island Unit 1 near Harrisburg, will be restarted as part of a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft. This is a positive development, but its potential to be replicated is limited. Natural gas is abundant, flexible, and affordable.
Some will say to build renewables only instead, but that is simplistic thinking.
We’re already far behind the massive and costly 60% expansion of America’s power grid that Princeton University says is needed just to transition our existing grid to a net-zero future. While solar and wind are vital to a clean energy future, their weather dependence cannot fulfill 24/7 power needs.
Harris has a track record on aligning natural gas with opportunity. Under her Administration, the U.S. became the global leader of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and was the largest LNG supplier to Europe in 2022 and 2023, stabilizing the economies of our Allies after Russia’s Ukraine invasion.
Pennsylvania workers were part of that victory.
Other statewide Democrats get it. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and John Fetterman (D-PA) have stood up to their Party and supported the natural gas industry, and Governor Shapiro has laid out plans for a diverse, resilient electricity grid. Pennsylvanians agree: 74% support building more natural gas infrastructure and 79% said natural gas drilling is important to the state’s economy.
Pennsylvania has the natural resources, the infrastructure, and the know-how to power the AI boom and benefit so many across the Commonwealth. Natural gas remains the obvious choice to scale up fast to meet new demands, protect our environment, and support Pennsylvania jobs. Balance is key. AI is the future, and the United States can only lead on it with practical energy policy that starts in key states like Pennsylvania.
Presidential candidate Harris would be smart to embrace it.
Tim Ryan served ten terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2003 to 2023. He serves as the co-chair of the Natural Allies for a Clean Energy Future Leadership Council.
Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Possible Within ‘Days’: Lebanese PM
Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati has issued a surprisingly optimistic assessment of the possibility of peace in Lebanon. On Wednesday he said that a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah might be achieved in the coming days.
He cited a ‘hopeful’ conversation with US special envoy Amos Hochstein, related to a new Washington-backed ceasefire proposal. “We are doing our best… to have a ceasefire within the coming hours or days,” PM Mikati told Lebanese broadcaster Al-Jadeed. He said he remains “cautiously optimistic.”
Mikati explained he has reason to believe that a full ceasefire is possible and even realistic prior to the US election on November 5. On the other side, an Israeli official has told ABC News of “significant progress” toward a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Two senior White House advisers have meanwhile arrived in Israel Thursday as part of an effort to finalize and close the deal. Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk are said to be going into it with the belief that Hezbollah has so many blows, especially the death of its longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah, that it is looking to disassociate itself from Hamas and the Gaza war.
According to Axios: “A deal that would end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah could be achieved within a few weeks, Israeli and U.S. officials said.” The same report has listed out the following simultaneous diplomatic engagements of the US in the region:
Israeli officials said Biden adviser Amos Hochstein was waiting for Israeli leaders to decide about whether to move forward with the deal before he traveled to Israel.
The fact that he and Biden adviser Brett McGurk are coming suggest Netanyahu is in favor of pursuing the deal, they said.
CIA director Bill Burns will be in Cairo on Thursday “to engage with Egyptian counterparts on bilateral matters as well as the process to secure the release of hostages,” the official said.
“CENTCOM Commander Gen. Erik Kurilla is traveling to the region to discuss regional defense and will visit Israel to engage with counterparts and U.S. personnel.”
Israeli media has said that contents of the US-proposed deal have leaked online, citing Kan public broadcaster.
“The ceasefire proposal begins with a 60-day implementation period, during which time the Lebanese army will deploy along the border and confiscate Hezbollah arms in southern Lebanon,” Times of Israelsays of the documents.
“The IDF will be required to pull all troops from Lebanon within seven days of the end of hostilities, and will be replaced by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF),” it adds. UN peacekeeping troops will reportedly facilitate the transition, and some 10,000 Lebanese national army troops. According to more:
At the end of the 60-day implementation period, Israel and Lebanon will hold indirect negotiations via the US on fully implementing Resolution 1701 and resolving border disputes.
A new International Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanism (IMEM) will be created, with the US serving as chair and with the participation of Italy, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, UNIFIL and regional countries.
But in the meantime Israel’s airstrikes on positions in the south, Beirut, and even in the northeast have continued. They’ve even expanded, with the Bekaa Valley getting pounded, and Tyre getting hit again on Thursday.
But the same day Israeli is reporting that at least six civilians have been killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks on the north, including some foreign workers in the city of Metula. An Israeli woman has also been killed in Haifa Bay.
Secret Service leaders meddled in an independent government investigation of the July 13 assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump and are still not following many basic agency security protocols for presidential candidates, presidents, and vice presidents in the final days before the election, according to emails reviewed by RealClearPolitics and several sources in the Secret Service community.
As Secret Service failures came to light in the weeks after the July assassination attempt, USSS managers sent emails to employees asking them to alert them to any “direct requests for information or interview” from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, or DHS OIG. The internal government watchdog is conducting its probe of the failures that led to the near assassination of Trump, the killing of fireman Corey Comperatore, and the wounding of two other rally-goers at the western Pennsylvania campaign event.
The emails, which RealClearPolitics reviewed, contained the subject line “DHS OIG Inquiries” and directed employees to tell their supervisors if an OIG official reaches out to them so Secret Service managers could coordinate “an organized response.” Supervisors sent the email five days after the same inspector general issued a negative report on the Secret Service’s actions before and on Jan. 6, criticizing the agency for failing to detect a pipe bomb near Vice President Kamala Harris and not flagging signs of potential violence to other agencies.
Normally, responding to DHS OIG investigators without talking to superiors would not warrant coordination with supervisors, the email stated. But after the first assassination attempt against Trump, USSS leadership needed to provide the proper context and a coordinated response.
“Generally, not an issue; however, this is NOT the normal course of action, and the Service needs awareness and to ensure an organized response with information in the correct context,” Secret Service supervisors wrote in the emails, noting that “only we know what we do.”
The email is now under Senate scrutiny. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a longtime champion of government whistleblowers, on Wednesday sent a letter to Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe expressing concern that the email and any other communications like it could have “a chilling effect” on employee disclosures to the inspector general’s office, as well as on congressional investigations.
“If this email is an accurate representation of the actions taken by Secret Service management, it could have a chilling effect on its employees from fully cooperating and providing information to the DHS OIG as well as congressional investigations out of fear of retaliation since supervisors will apparently be keeping tabs on their communications,” Grassley wrote in the letter, a copy of which his office provided to RCP.
Instead of trying to control the flow and context of information, Secret Service leaders should be “encouraging” employees to “come forward to provide truthful information to the DHS OIG and Congress so that lessons can be learned to prevent future assassination attempts,” Grassley added.
The Iowa Republican set a deadline of Nov. 13 for Rowe to hand over all records “between and among Secret Service personnel” related to providing information to the DHS OIG and congressional investigations into the July 13 attempted assassination.
Tristan Leavitt, an attorney and president of Empower Oversight, which represents Secret Service, IRS, and other government whistleblowers, said the email demanding that potential whistleblowers coordinate communications with their bosses stifles the free flow of information, which could help improve the agency’s performance and which federal law protects.
“Secret Service employees have every right to anonymously contact the DHS OIG without informing their supervisor,” Leavitt said. “While this email is purportedly aimed at employees contacted directly by the OIG, it will undoubtedly discourage employees who may have information about wrongdoing from contacting the OIG or Congress.”
The Secret Service acknowledged receipt of Grassley’s letter but declined to respond to RCP’s questions about how many supervisors sent the email and whether there were other attempts to pressure employees from independently discussing problems they’ve experienced in the Secret Service with DHS OIG or congressional investigators.
“The U.S. Secret Service is in receipt of the letter sent by Senator Grassley,” an agency spokesman said in a statement. “The Secret Service has been and will continue to examine the events of the July 13 assassination attempt and will fully cooperate with Congress and other relevant investigations. We respect the Senator’s role of oversight within the Senate Judiciary Committee and will respond through official channels.”
In the hectic waning hours before Election Day, Secret Service agents are also complaining about security shortcuts that agency leaders are allowing, sometimes requiring, to handle last-minute venue changes and adjustments to Trump’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’s break-neck campaign schedule.
The Secret Service still has not provided Trump’s campaign with a military aircraft three weeks after it was requested, even though President Biden said earlier this month that he had authorized the Department of Homeland Security to “give him every single thing he needs.”
Sources in the Secret Service community tell RCP that Trump’s campaign staff have made significant changes to his schedule less than 12 hours before arrivals, hamstringing the advance team’s ability to plan, coordinate, and obtain manpower and resources properly. The last-minute changes, which are typical in the final weeks of a presidential campaign, have posed significant challenges to providing security for Trump, who is still facing known threats from foreign and domestic actors.
After a second attempt on Trump’s life, the Secret Service started using ballistic glass to provide extra security for the Republican presidential nominee at outdoor and other venues. But at times, late schedule changes have prevented the glass from being in place when it should have been and has led to a shortage of security manpower, these sources assert.
Secret Service agents also complain that the agency’s managers devoted to Harris’ security have instructed advance personnel to submit manpower and resource requests without knowing any of the sites in Harris’ schedule. They also complain that Harris’ staff are “disorganized” in determining sites and are dictating what resources the vice president should have against the Secret Service advance team’s strong recommendations without any pushback from agency leaders.
“This is not new, just a continuation of poor USSS leadership,” a source tells RCP. “It puts the entire Secret Service into a cross-your-fingers-and-hope-nothing-happens situation. Sound familiar?”
The Secret Service also has come up short in securing Harris’ communications with her advance team, so they don’t share vital movements and logistics with the public or unwanted parties, according to several sources. The White House Communications Agency provides secure communications services for only the president and vice president but does not extend those to Trump because of a lack of resources.
However, even Harris’ campaign staff and her Secret Service advance teams have been using unauthorized communications because of a dearth of WHCA manpower and resources coupled with last-minute changes to the vice president’s campaign schedule, the sources contend.
Secret Service sources argue that the security procedures have not only failed to improve since July 13 but have further deteriorated.
The USSS workforce is “aggressively communicating” to their supervisors that they are providing inadequate security that fails to meet agency standards, while the agency’s leaders, ensconced in their Washington offices, are assuring everyone that “they’ll be fine and to keep up the good work,” one source argues.
“It’s those on the front lines, who do the long hours and impossible tasks, who get thrown under the bus when everything does go wrong while leaders simply retire and move on,” the source told RCP. “No accountability.”
The agency did not respond to questions about these alleged deviations from agency security protocols.
China Weaponizes Supply Chain, Sends America’s Largest Drone Maker Into Crisis
America’s largest drone company and supplier of unmanned aircraft to the Ukrainian Armed Forces has been thrown into a supply chain crisis after Beijing imposed sanctions, barring it from sourcing drone parts from Chinese suppliers, according to a new Financial Times report. This is another wake-up call for American companies heavily reliant on China, highlighting the urgent need to ‘friend-shore’ or ‘reshore’ critical supply chains away from the world’s second-largest economy.
Sources familiar with the situation told FT that Beijing imposed sanctions on Skydio to prevent it from sourcing battery components from Chinese firms.
On Wednseday, Skydio said the sanctions by China were “for selling drones to Taiwan, where our only customer today is the National Fire Agency.”
Skydio CEO Adam Bry met with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and senior White House officials last week to discuss the dire situation as the Chinese paralyzed part of the drone company’s supply chain.
“This is a clarifying moment for the drone industry,” Bry told customers in a letter obtained by FT. He said, “If there was ever any doubt, this action makes clear that the Chinese government will use supply chains as a weapon to advance their interests over ours.”
Bry continued, “This is an attempt to eliminate the leading American drone company and deepen the world’s dependence on Chinese drone suppliers.”
China initially unveiled the sanctions on October 11 as retaliation for Washington’s move to sell attack drones to Taiwan. The FT noted that the company recently secured a contract with Taiwan’s fire agency.
FT sources did not mention which of Skydio’s Chinese suppliers were affected by the sanctions.
Using public trade data compiled by counterparty and supply chain risk intelligence firm Sayari, about 94.44% of Skydio’s drone component shipments came from Vietnam, 4.9% from Hong Kong, and .65% from China.
One official told FT, “We suspect Skydio was targeted by Beijing because it is likely seen as a competitor to DJI,” adding, “If there is a silver lining, we can use this episode to accelerate our work to diversify drone supply chains away from . . . China.”
It seems like a tit-for-tat-sanction war between America and the Chinese to weaken each other drone-manufacturing capabilities.
US CBP Agents Halt Some DJI Drone Imports Over ‘Forced Labor’ Concerns https://t.co/Ub8sdyP3xd
