Jamie Dettmer is an associate editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO.

If Democrats do as well as expected in today’s U.S. midterm elections, champagne corks will pop across Europe. But those raising a glass may want to think about the morning after.

A Democratic takeover of Congress is unlikely to offer Europe immediate relief. Constrained at home, Trump would still be free to focus on foreign policy and trade, where the U.S. executive branch faces relatively few congressional checks — increasing the risk of fresh disputes and tougher demands on Europe.

“It would be a mistake for Europeans to assume there will be warmer transatlantic relations,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, the veteran German diplomat and former chair of the Munich Security Conference. “My assumption is the exact opposite will happen.”

A recent EU-wide survey found 58 percent of respondents rooting for the Democrats, compared with just 18 percent for Donald Trump’s Republicans. But while opinion polls suggest the U.S. president’s European critics will get their wish, they’d better avoid any triumphalism or crowing, counsels Ischinger.

“There will be voices here in Europe, some important ones, who’ll want to celebrate and congratulate the Democrats, but I think that would be poisonous,” he told POLITICO. 

“I’d advise my European friends to be restrained and avoid creating any pretext for the White House to be mad at Europe — that is any more than it already is,” he added with a chuckle.

Others are skeptical that reticence will make any difference. They include Nathalie Tocci, a former adviser to two EU foreign policy chiefs.

“To be honest, I don’t think Trump really needs any reasons or excuses to lash out at Europe,” she said. And it will be hard not to celebrate, she argued, if you “care about democracy,” given the ties between Trump’s MAGA movement and populist, far-right politicians in Europe.

A setback for Trump could lift the spirits of Europe’s liberals and centrists, who have seized on electoral rebuffs for Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić as evidence that populism has peaked — or at least plateaued.

That conclusion may be premature. The polling strength of France’s Marine Le Pen and recent gains by Germany’s Alternative for Germany suggest populist politics remain potent. Still, a rebuff for MAGA would give liberals and centrists a morale boost, Tocci said.

But would a Democratic victory benefit the EU in the near term? “Not much,” Ischinger said. A Democratic takeover of Congress would have little practical impact on Europe and could even make matters worse.

“If Donald Trump finds himself ensnared in congressional investigations, impeachment procedures and is constrained on the domestic front by a hostile Congress, he’s bound to gravitate to where Congress is weak — on foreign and trade policies,” he added. “We need to brace ourselves for not more harmonious transatlantic relations but more acrimony and even more Trump demands on Europe.”

Kurt Volker, who served as George W. Bush’s last U.S. ambassador to NATO, is of the same mind. 

“Don’t expect much change from the Trump administration,” he cautioned. “Congress will investigate everything. They will investigate Trump, his family, Trump family businesses, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Elon Musk, Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel at the FBI. Trump will fight this all the way, and it’ll be a big circus.” 

“Okay, the Democrats will be much more supportive of Ukraine and NATO, but they can’t direct Trump to do things,” he added. “They can approve money, but Trump just turns around and says, ‘Well, I don’t have to spend it.’”

Volker predicts Trump will step up his use of pocket rescission, a contested legal theory for clawing back congressionally appropriated funds. “That has been the pattern on so many things, tariffs most notably,” said Volker. “But on lots of things, he’d prefer to run out the clock and fight in the courts.”

The former ambassador said he’s unsure which way Trump will go when it comes to Iran — relaunch military operations or leave the crisis for Europe and Asia to solve. On NATO and reducing U.S. deployments in Europe, Volker suspects Trump will be careful out of fear of domestic backlash.

Then again, Trump is “extraordinarily hard to predict,” said Bronwen Maddox, director and CEO of Britain’s Chatham House think tank. “Maybe he’ll retreat after a bit of initial lashing out at the election result and focus on his planned monuments, including the White House ballroom,” she speculated hopefully but without too much conviction.

Maddox sees no cause for celebration, whatever the election result or Trump’s response. European leaders should instead reflect on how much the U.S. has changed. “American voters elected Trump twice, and even if they now turn on him, those elections show their focus is now inward,” she said.

Europeans were slow to grasp the significance of MAGA and how long the movement might endure, Maddox said. She believes too little recognition remains of how much the American political landscape has changed — including the Democratic Party. 

“I don’t think America sees itself in Europe in the way it used to,” she said. “For me, that message has been clear for some time.”

Ford vowed to never sell customer driving data to third-party data brokers as part of a new privacy promise aimed at setting the automaker apart from competitors that have faced legal and regulatory blowback for sharing telematics with data brokers without authorization.

As part of its new promise, Ford says it will strive to protect customer data by using aggregating and anonymizing techniques. It will also "provide clear and easy-to-understand information about how we use your personal information." And while Ford says it will still use data to improve safety, it will allow customers to adjust how much or how little data they would prefe …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Patti Zirhut, a lifelong Republican, has been studying her ballot for weeks. Zirhut eagerly voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024, but she isn't toeing the party line this year. "My ballot is all mixed up," she says. She's voting for some Republicans, some independents, and even a few Democrats. Zirhut remains undecided on a few races, but of one thing she is absolutely certain: "I will not vote for Byron Donalds," she tells me. "No way will I ever vote for him."

Donalds, the Republican nominee in Florida's gubernatorial election, has Trump's endorsement, the party's backing, and $148 million in campaign funds, much of it …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Let’s say that you’re savagely beaten by a federal officer despite the fact that you committed no crime. Or maybe your home is ransacked by FBI agents who didn’t even bother to get a warrant. Or maybe you’re shot in cold blood by immigration officials engaged in a paramilitary occupation of your home city.

The Supreme Court has worked hard, especially in recent years, to ensure that you will have little, if  any, recourse against federal law enforcement officials who abuse their power. In one case, decided about six years ago, the Court’s Republican majority gave lawsuit immunity to a US Border Patrol agent who fatally shot a Mexican teenager in the face.

Now, the Court is poised to finish the job. On November 9, the Court will hear Nielsen v. Watanabe, a case that could eliminate all remaining hope that someone targeted by a federal officer with no regard for the Constitution might be able to hold that officer accountable in court. Among other things, the justices could use Nielsen to overrule its decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), which established that federal law enforcement officers may sometimes be sued if they violate someone’s constitutional rights.

Bivens was rooted in something very similar to the Spider-Man Rule — with great power comes great responsibility. As the Court explained in Bivens, a federal officer who acts unlawfully “in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.” And thus the Constitution must offer some remedy to people who are injured by such an officer.

But Bivens quickly fell out of favor in the Supreme Court as its membership moved rightward. The Court’s current, Republican majority is so unrelentingly hostile toward Bivens that it is hard to imagine any plaintiff prevailing in a Bivens suit before this Court. The Court’s most recent decisions have described Bivens suits as a “disfavored judicial activity.” In one decision, they’ve said that it is “doubtful that we would have reached the same result” if Bivens were “decided today.” And they’ve instructed judges to reject Bivens claims if there is “any rational reason (even one)” to do so.

In Nielsen, the same justices who wrote these lines are now being asked to overrule Bivens altogether. Even if they decide not to go that far, they’ve already done so much to carve up Bivens that there is virtually no hope for anyone who sues a federal officer for violating their constitutional rights.

What’s the specific issue in Nielsen?

Nielsen arises out of an alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment, which forbids “cruel and unusual punishments.” The Supreme Court has long held that this amendment requires prisons to provide medical care to incarcerated people, because if the prison does not provide them with care, they will have no other way to treat their illnesses or injuries.

The last time the Court ruled in favor of someone who sued a federal officer under Bivens was Carlson v. Green (1980), a decision that allowed the estate of a man who died in prison due to poor medical care to sue prison officials under Bivens. The Nielsen plaintiff, a formerly incarcerated man named Kekai Watanabe, raises a similar claim to the one in Carlson. Watanabe was assaulted by fellow inmates, and received some medical care for “severe back pain.” But when he asked to be treated in a hospital, that care was denied.

He claims that, for months, he “received only intermittent and short-term treatment for pain, often over-the-counter medication,” despite repeated requests for more care. After seven months, according to his brief, Watanabe was finally given an X-ray, which revealed that he had a fractured tailbone and that “bone chips had migrated into the surrounding soft tissue.” Watanabe also claims that he was never given treatment by a medical specialist, and “remains in tremendous pain today.”

A federal appeals court concluded that Watanabe’s legal claim “is identical to Carlson in all meaningful respects,” and thus his lawsuit against a prison health provider could move forward. Though the Supreme Court “has cautioned against extending Bivens remedies,” the lower court explained, “it has consistently maintained that” Carlson is “still good law.”

On the one hand, the appeals court is correct that Watanabe alleges a legal violation that is very similar to the one in Carlson. In both cases, someone incarcerated in a federal prison alleged that their Eighth Amendment rights were violated because the prison did not provide them with adequate medical care. So that does suggest that Watanabe should be allowed to bring a Bivens claim for as long as Carlson remains good law.

Still, the Court’s recent cases tell judges to rule against Bivens plaintiffs if there is “any rational reason” to do so. And there are certainly some distinctions that can be drawn between Carlson and Nielsen. The plaintiff in Carlson, for example, had an asthma attack and died within hours, while Watanabe is still alive and his medical condition played out over many months. The defendants’ lawyers in Nielsen also argue that Congress has changed the law governing suits brought by federal prisoners in ways that make their case meaningfully different from Carlson.

These distinctions are fairly minor. But if judges are really supposed to look for any rational reason to deny Bivens claims, then these distinctions are almost certainly enough. Again, it’s hard to imagine this Supreme Court ruling in favor of any Bivens plaintiff, including Watanabe. In Nielsen, the lawyers asking the Court to overrule Bivens claim that, since Carlson, the Court has rejected 13 different suits raising Bivens arguments.

For what it is worth, the legal debate over Bivens focuses on whether Congress must specifically authorize suits against federal officers before those suits can move forward. The Court’s Republicans claim that the absence of such a law means that no suits against federal officers are allowed (a federal law does authorize suits against state officials who violate constitutional rights). 

Meanwhile, proponents of Bivens argue that the 1971 decision merely added coherence to a long line of pre-Bivens decisions permitting suits against federal officials — some of which stretch back to the early 1800s. As the Court said in Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), “the principle that an agent is liable for his own torts ‘is an ancient one and applies even to certain acts of public officers or public instrumentalities.’”

But it matters little who is correct about this debate, because Republicans control six seats on the Supreme Court, and those six justices are fully dug into their opposition to Bivens.

The biggest open question in Nielsen, in other words, is whether the Court will take the defendant’s lawyers up on their invitation to overrule Bivens in its entirety. Just a few years ago, a decision overruling Bivens would have been a very big deal. But, in light of the Court’s decisions holding that judges should look for reasons to deny Bivens claims, little of Bivens remains to be further undermined by this Court.

Federal officials already enjoy such broad immunity from suit that an opinion overruling Bivens will probably do little more than rescue judges from the menial task of hunting through legal records in Bivens cases, searching for a reason to rule against the plaintiff.

Friedrich Merz steht vor einer heiklen Mission:
Der CDU-Chef trifft auf die Kreisvorsitzenden und damit auf die teils kritischsten offiziellen Stimmen seiner Partei. Nach schmerzhaften Wahlniederlagen prallen Hauptstadt-Blase und Parteibasis aufeinander. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert, wie viel Druck hinter verschlossenen Türen auf dem Kanzler lastet und ob er das Vertrauen der eigenen Leute zurückgewinnen kann.

Im 200-Sekunden-Interview macht Serap Güler, Kölner CDU-Kreisvorsitzende und Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt, klare Ansagen an die Parteispitze. Sie fordert eine bessere Kommunikation und eine unmissverständliche Haltung zur AfD. Ob die Basis wirklich noch bedingungslos hinter Merz und diesen Forderungen steht?

Auf dem diplomatischen Parkett rücken Berlin und London derweil wieder in den Fokus. Beim Antrittsbesuch des britischen Verteidigungsministers Wes Streeting bei Boris Pistorius geht es um weitreichende Rüstungsprojekte, darunter eine neue Langstreckenrakete zur Abschreckung Russlands. Chris Lunday ordnet ein, warum ausgerechnet Frankreich bei diesem Milliardenprojekt zum politischen Störfaktor werden könnte.

Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.

Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

BRUSSELS — NATO countries are bracing for a worst-case scenario in the U.S. midterm elections Tuesday.

European allies fear a Republican loss could spur President Donald Trump to dramatically step up his attacks on the alliance, according to five NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive issue.

Their worry is that if he is restrained by Congress on domestic policy, Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, may seek to cement his legacy on foreign affairs, where he has a freer hand. That could mean pulling thousands more troops out of Europe, three of the diplomats said.

“Usually what happens to lame duck presidents is a mix of venting frustrations and adventurism in foreign policy,” said one senior European defense official. And attacking NATO “seems to be a consistent part of [the] Trump worldview.”

White House Assistant Press Secretary Olivia Wales told POLITICO that “President Trump has done more for NATO than anyone else,” citing his successes in securing agreements by allies to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, bolster U.S. military presence in Greenland, and efforts to end Russia’s all-out war in Ukraine.

Yet he “remains firm that our NATO allies should have been there for the United States” over the war in Iran, she said, adding: “The President will never settle for the West’s managed decline and will continue to unapologetically advance our interests at home and abroad.”

Democrats are widely expected to win the House of Representatives and potentially flip the Senate, while Trump’s personal approval ratings have fallen to his lowest on record.

The worries underscore growing transatlantic tensions after a U.S. cutoff of Starlink satellite services for Ukraine and a fresh rapprochement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin weeks before the midterms. Further attacks would deal a fresh blow to NATO, just as Russia steps up its sabotage campaign and so-called hybrid war across Europe.

“He could be very pissed off,” said one of the NATO diplomats. If so, “he’ll be very harsh.”

Forces, money and Ukraine

At the heart of the concerns is an upcoming review of U.S. forces in Europe, expected by December. If Trump is blocked from legislating domestically, he may seek to significantly increase the scope of that pullback to rally his MAGA base, three of the diplomats said. 

The president could also decide to tie continued American presence on the continent to Europe accepting a U.S.-backed peace deal in Ukraine, said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO official and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“There is a risk that all these things — the U.S. force posture review, Ukraine, European security order … somehow are treated as part of a much bigger deal with Putin,” she said, “creating a very dangerous situation for security in Europe.”

Trump could also move to cut U.S. contributions to the alliance’s common funding, limit the NATO-backed PURL arms-buying scheme for Ukraine, as well as deepen ties still further with Russia, the diplomats said.

A major electoral defeat for the Republicans could also spell big changes at the Pentagon, which would have knock-on effects for any plans currently being hatched in the building.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has become a deeply unpopular figure in Congress, given his refusal to provide regular briefings about budgets and operations to lawmakers, especially Democrats.

That unpopularity has led to speculation that Hegseth could be out after an electoral blowout for Trump, partially because a Democrat-led Congress would slap Hegseth with probes into his firing of dozens of generals and admirals with no cause, and the faltering war with Iran. Those hearings and investigations would hamstring Hegseth and his team, and could prove embarrassing for the administration.

If Hegseth does move on, there would be a transition period in the Pentagon which could push any decisions about moving U.S. troops out of Europe back by weeks or months.

In theory, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate would restrain Trump’s maneuverability even on foreign and defense issues, even if U.S. law currently imposes a minimum limit of 76,000 on troop presence in Europe. 

But “it is doubtful that at least the troop floors would stand up to legal scrutiny and in any case Trump has been very willing to ignore the courts,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank. “The Trump administration has regularly ignored funding guidance from Congress, spending money on activities the legislative branch has not authorized.”

If Trump decides to impose a more sprawling drawdown, Europe will have “the most trouble” replacing assets including electronic warfare capabilities, air defense systems, intelligence and reconnaissance support, aerial refueling, and some types of logistics, she said.

Other allies are more skeptical Trump would hammer NATO. “We have had speculations all the time about Trump … coming out of the NATO; this has not happened so far,” Montenegrin Defense Minister Dragan Krapović told POLITICO. “Congress is the one making the decision, the final decision about less troops in Europe.”

But “to make assumptions with a high probability of success needs an object of study that makes rational decisions,” said a sixth NATO diplomat. “I don’t think we are there with the current POTUS.”

NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment by POLITICO.

MONTREAL, Canada — The European Union and Canada have agreed to build the closest possible relationship. Over the next six months, they will have to define what that means — and whether Canada can become the EU’s first, and perhaps only, associate member.

A summit in Montreal last week highlighted the urgency behind the budding relationship. Both sides say their partnership is positive and not directed against any country. But it is also driven by mutual need: to shore up supply chains, pool expertise and reduce reliance on the United States and China.

Mark Carney told POLITICO in an interview straight after the summit that the two sides should not be tailoring their partnership to cope with the potential reactions of other powers. “We’re not adjusting [based on] what the U.S. might think, what China might think, what … Russia might think,” he said. The goal, the Canadian prime minister explained, is to help both sides “withstand shocks” and prevent rivals from exploiting critical dependencies.

The test of that plan comes in six months, when the European Commission will meet with the Canadian government to see what progress has been made. One diplomat involved in the talks, granted anonymity to speak freely, said the meeting, which will be held in March before next year’s EU-Canada summit in Brussels, should make clear how far the relationship can develop and whether Ottawa is really on track for associate membership.

In the months ahead, there will be plenty of issues that could distract EU leaders. Governments must negotiate the bloc’s next seven-year budget, amid deep divisions over its size and spending priorities. Plus, a series of elections in some of the EU’s biggest countries, including Spain, France, Italy and Poland, will make concentrating on Canada a tall order.

Deal first, definition later

The joint declaration signed in Montreal commits both sides to defining the concept of “associate membership” by their 2027 summit. In the meantime, they have a slate of agreements and work plans to put into practice.

That includes a digital trade agreement and a competition deal signed in Montreal, plus Canada’s participation in the EU’s high-performance computing partnership. They also agreed on a new framework for cooperation between EU border force Frontex and the Canada Border Services Agency. Ottawa said it intends to join the EU’s Ukraine Support Loan facility.

The declaration sets out further work on critical raw materials and energy, including a feasibility study into long-term liquefied natural gas exports to Europe and exploring ways to jointly stockpile strategic resources. It also calls for cooperation on subsea cables, artificial intelligence and research, closer financial links, Arctic security, and disaster response. Canada and the EU will begin talks on deeper Canadian participation in Erasmus+, the EU’s education and youth program.

The summit also saw the launch of the Alliance for the Future, a broader partnership plan that could eventually include Japan, South Korea and Australia. It aims to build resilient supply chains and coordinate on economic security, so partner nations do not inadvertently harm one another with trade measures as they respond to Chinese overcapacity and U.S. tariffs.

But that could be easier said than done, with both Europe and Canada keen to avoid breaching World Trade Organization rules with their arrangements.

That concern is already visible in the debate over “Buy Canadian” and the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” rules, both of which seek to favor homegrown suppliers. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in Montreal that Brussels intends to ensure Canada is not disadvantaged by the EU’s Industrial Accelerator Act — proposed legislation encouraging European businesses to go greener through subsidies and payment schemes. The ball is now in Carney’s court to offer similar assurances to European businesses under Buy Canadian.

Semantics breakdown

The summit’s biggest political snag came down to two words.

Von der Leyen opened the door to Canada becoming the EU’s first “associate member” in her State of the Union speech in September. But Germany blocked the term from being included in the joint declaration, saying the concept is vague and undefined. Other EU capitals said they also wanted to know what the arrangement would entail before fully committing to it.

The wrangle over the label overshadowed the substance of the summit and visibly frustrated both Carney and the European contingent. Asked about Germany’s objections, Carney told POLITICO it was “a very internal European issue.”

The dispute highlights Ottawa’s challenge: even if the Canadian government and the Commission agree on a plan, any formal arrangement must navigate 27 EU governments with their own concerns, pet industries and foibles.

The real reason for Berlin’s opposition remains unclear, with one EU diplomat describing the kerfuffle as an “embarrassment.”

One theory among senior EU officials and diplomats is that Germany was smarting because it wanted the term to be used for Ukraine earlier this year — only for other EU countries and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself to reject the idea.

The Le Pen test

The EU-Canada partnership is meant to rest on shared, centrist values. But what happens if political shifts in the EU’s two largest countries change what underpins the friendship?

The French presidential election in April could bring Marine Le Pen to power, while the Alternative for Germany has made gains in successive regional elections.

Carney told POLITICO he would work with whichever leaders voters choose, while drawing a line between cooperation and agreement. “My responsibility is to work with, whether it’s provincial premiers or leaders of other countries, in the best interest of Canada,” he said. But he added that “working with and having agreement on are two different things.”

Carney said democratic outcomes could change Europe’s priorities, but argued that cooperation could still deepen.

The six-month stocktake will show whether that confidence holds.

Data centers are deeply unpopular. But what if we called them something else?

Gravity is a cruel mistress, slowly dragging the famed telescope ever closer to its ultimate demise with every day. Hubble is in no immediate danger of burning up in the Earth's atmosphere, but its time will run out in the early to mid 2030s unless its orbit is boosted. So NASA is taking proposals from the private sector to see if anyone can save it.

In a post on NASA's site, Administrator Jared Isaacman said:

"Hubble still has important science ahead of it, and we should be looking at every reasonable opportunity to keep it delivering for as long as possible … If there are innovative and cost-effective ways to extend the life of an asset …

Read the full story at The Verge.

While more cities are canceling their contracts with Flock Safety, just as many are discovering how difficult that can be in some instances. Plymouth, Minnesota's city council voted to terminate its contract with Flock in September, but failed to respond to the city's request. For over a month, the cameras remained up, and the city had received no acknowledgment from the company. So, Police Chief Eric Fadden took matters into his own hands and physically disconnected the cameras.

"After hearing nothing for more than a week, I directed our staff to disconnect the power cords from the cameras in order to be sure that they are not functioning …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The FBI says North Korea was behind the massive $6.3 billion crypto heist that hit Binance on October 29th. The FBI labeled the activity "TraderTraitor" and said that it had observed actors it has connected to hack converting the tokens to Ethereum and preparing for further laundering of the funds. The agency offered few other details or evidence. The statement says:

North Korea Responsible for $6 Billion+ Binance Attack

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is releasing information advising the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) was responsible for the theft of more than $6 billion USD in virtual assets from crypto …

Read the full story at The Verge.

A high-stakes California ballot measure pitched as a fast track for "essential" infrastructure could wind up giving data center developers a loophole to evade public scrutiny, environmental advocates warn.

Proposition 45 would shorten timelines for state-mandated environmental assessments for eligible projects and make it more difficult for residents to challenge those projects in court. Proponents say passing the measure would help alleviate the state's housing shortage and meet rising electricity demand with new renewable energy projects. Environmental groups and some legal experts, however, warn that data center developers backing the pr …

Read the full story at The Verge.

With a number of anti-data-center candidates poised to win on Tuesday, New York provides a glimpse at the tensions around actually having to do something about the digital infrastructure.

At a Brooklyn midterm party five days before Election Day, every conversation, from a council member’s fireside chat to a debate about the Democratic Party, kept circling back to AI and data centers.

An NAACP lawsuit accuses the SpaceX-owned AI company of violating the Clean Air Act.

Vladimir Putin’s possible return to a G20 summit in Florida in December risks normalizing Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Saturday.

“Normalizing Russia coming back to these international fora is just normalizing war crimes being committed every day now” in Ukraine, Kallas said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

She added that Russia’s war in Ukraine conflicts “with U.N charter principles that all these countries around the table have signed up to.”

Putin hasn’t yet confirmed whether he would attend the December summit hosted in the U.S. His last in-person attendance at a G20 meeting was in 2019 — three years before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Kallas’ remarks come amid growing frustration among EU countries over Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov’s attendance at a G20 ministerial gathering in Atlanta.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was hosting the meeting, called off the traditional family photo after European officials refused to stand beside Lavrov.

Kallas said in the interview that “we don’t want to stand next to him [Lavrov] in this fora,” because he’s been placed under international sanctions.

However, she added that Lavrov’s presence meant “we can also immediately fight back on these lies” from Russia.

Kallas hailed the U.S. decision on Friday to sell 500 Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine as a “very positive development” and called on allies to toughen sanctions against Russia.

A former Prime Minister of Estonia, Kallas has emerged as one of the EU’s most vocal critics of Russia.

In the interview, she rebuffed reported calls from the Pentagon for NATO countries, including the Baltic states that border Russia, to tone down their criticism of the Kremlin.

“The question is if you don’t talk about the threat, is it going away? I think it’s not going away.”

"Its James Talarico. Can you please please please please pretty pretty please rush in even just $1?"

"Who's working to elect James Talarico? Marxists."

"Wow! Wow! Wow! Mark Kelly just made a HUGE announcement!"

"We asked Ben Verlander, MLB analyst and former Tigers prospect, to record a quick video about the election this Tuesday, November 3rd."

"See which of your friends or family members have voted in the past and remind them to vote this year."

If any of these messages sound familiar, it's likely because they're part of the massive stream of text messages flooding your phone leading up to the US midterm elections on Tuesday. The scal …

Read the full story at The Verge.

MONTREAL — Canada embraced the European Union’s offer of “associate membership” after a two-day summit at which Brussels and Ottawa gave themselves until next June to work out what their new relationship will look like.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s endorsement of the proposal by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen followed weeks of hesitation, a hostile response from U.S. President Donald Trump and pushback from EU heavyweight Germany.

“In the coming months, we will determine the full substance, scale, and scope of this new form of membership,” Carney told a press conference on Friday at the end of the two-day summit at the Port of Montreal. 

“Today, we move towards associate membership for Canada,” Carney said, describing it as “the deepest possible partnership short of accession.”

The two sides have set a June 2027 deadline to determine the terms and boundaries of their intensifying relationship — an alliance that comes with a payment schedule. Carney danced around a question pressing him on how much associate membership will cost the Canadian public.

“We don’t view this as paying, personally,” Carney said, stressing the alliance as a “positive” project.

Von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, standing either side of Carney, presented the experiment as a necessary survival strategy to thrive in an increasingly dangerous world.

“The concept of an associate member is uncharted territory but we have the ambition, trust and creativity to shape it together,” Von der Leyen told reporters. “To be crystal clear, this is not a partnership against anybody, but for our common strength.”

Canadian government officials who spoke to reporters after the press conference confirmed legislation won’t be necessary to legitimize Canada’s EU associate membership status.

“Our relationship is so special that we want to create something new — to go beyond a simple association, everything short of a full EU membership,” said Costa, pitching a new model for non-European countries to integrate more closely with the bloc. “Our association will be the closest, deepest and most unique of its kind.”

Irritants persist

Despite the upbeat rhetoric, some longstanding trade disputes remained unresolved after the summit.

Carney told reporters the two sides had reached an agreement on carveouts from a landmark EU anti-deforestation law, but Canadian government officials subsequently walked back his assertion.

The issue remains part of ongoing trade discussions, one official said, noting progress in addressing what Canada views as flaws in the legislation. The officials were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic and trade negotiations.

Another irritant has been whether Canada would qualify for “Made in Europe” status under the EU’s Industrial Accelerator Act, a landmark measure that would seek to channel public procurement spending in sectors ranging from green energy to automotive toward locally produced goods. 

Von der Leyen said the regulation proposed earlier this year by the Commission foresaw including Canada as a free-trade partner, but added that it was now subject to review by EU lawmakers and governments.

“The Industrial Accelerator Act has been proposed by the Commission to include all countries with whom we have free-trade agreements. So automatically Canada would be in,” she said in response to a question. 

“Of course now the proposal has to go through the co-legislative process. But our proposal is very clear in including Canada.”

Despite months of preparations, the summit itself was chaotic, with agenda details confirmed at short notice and bilateral meetings split between two locations. The informal arrangements were intended to encourage more face time between EU commissioners and Canadian ministers, who are set to see much more of each other.

Canadian ministers have been invited to attend more meetings with their EU counterparts as part of a plan to deepen political alignment. Recent participation by Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu in informal EU meetings has served as a trial run.

Carney himself is expected in Dublin in two weeks, having accepted Costa’s invitation to join an informal European Council meeting.

As is the custom, millions of children in the United States will be out in the streets this Halloween to trick-or-treat, decked out in costumes. Also as is custom, adults will fret about the mostly mythical dangers children may face. Once upon a time it was razor blades in apples; this year, it’s rainbow fentanyl in candy. But while fears of children receiving narcotic-spiked treats are unfounded, there is a very real danger that America’s children face on this most hallowed of evenings: cars. 

That’s because pedestrians under the age of 18 are three times more likely to be struck and killed by a car on Halloween than any other day of the year. A 2026 analysis of federal crash records found that 45 children were killed while walking on Halloween between 2010 and 2024, more than any other day. That risk grows to 10 times more likely for children aged 4 to 8 years old, according to a study from 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics. 

“You’re going to have increased numbers of children, including younger children who are out on the streets,” said Lois Lee, a professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School. “At the same time, you have adults who are driving, and especially this year on a Monday, people will be driving home from work. If children are in costume, they may be wearing darker clothing … which makes them harder to detect.”

The JAMA Pediatrics study from 2019 corroborates this, noting that Halloween “may heighten pedestrian traffic risk, because celebrations occur at dusk, masks restrict peripheral vision, costumes limit visibility, street-crossing safety is neglected, and some partygoers are impaired by alcohol.” It’s the kind of lethal combination that can turn a fun occasion into a deadly nightmare. Adult victims included, the risk of death to all pedestrians was 43 percent higher on Halloween compared to a regular evening.

But what happens on Halloween isn’t an isolated incident. After gun injuries, motor vehicle injuries are the second leading cause of death among children in the US overall. And with pedestrian fatalities (both adult and child) at a 40-year high in the US, it’s worth asking why children roaming the streets is so inherently deadly, and what can be done about it.

“Sometimes when you talk about this issue, you get pushback from people and people say, ‘Well, of course, you have more children on the streets, of course, more children are going to die,’” Doug Gordon, a writer and podcast host who advocates for safer streets and cities, told me. “But that accepts a baseline level of danger that I think we as a society have in fact accepted on the other 364 days of the year.”

There are broader reasons for why streets have gotten even more dangerous for pedestrians recently. One is that drivers are distracted — not just by their phones, but increasingly by the infotainment systems that come as a part of newer cars. A more pressing issue is the increasing size of cars in the US; SUVs make up half of all car sales in the US, and are much more likely to kill pedestrians in crashes than smaller vehicles. “Mass times [acceleration] is force,” Gordon summed up. “When you increase the mass of something, you’re going to increase the force at which it interacts with a small vulnerable child.” 

But the biggest reason may be that American streets and cities are designed for cars, and not people. As Charles Marohn — founder and president of Strong Towns and an expert on urban planning and civil engineering — has argued, engineers who design streets prioritize getting cars as quickly from point A to point B over everything else. One recent example: A traffic safety committee in Utah could not find any way to make the five-lane road crossing to a school safer for students aside from just removing the crosswalk altogether.

But there is a lot that can be done to make streets safer, for future Halloweens and every other day of the year. In the short term, cities and towns can build on open streets programs implemented after the Covid-19 pandemic began, which involve closing certain streets to car traffic to allow for more public space. Notably, New York City announced a “Trick or Streets” plan that would see 100 car-free zones in effect from 4 to 8 pm on Halloween this year. And the Big Apple isn’t alone, as Henry Grabar reported for Slate: less dense and more car-dependent cities like St. Petersburg, Florida and Seattle will also either close off the city center for Halloween or actually allow residents to apply for permits that can close off their neighborhoods to car traffic.

In the long run, Gordon believes that places around the US should be able to pass what is known as the popsicle test, where a kid should be able to safely walk to a store, buy a popsicle, and return home before it melts. In essence, every city should be designed to be friendly and traversable to the most vulnerable in our communities. “If you start thinking along those lines, then I think you start thinking along the lines of what infrastructure is needed to make that possible, where I would feel comfortable letting my kid do that,” Gordon said. “Halloween is like a giant version of the popsicle test because it’s not just your kid, it’s every kid in the neighborhood.”

Designing safer streets for children goes beyond safety — it would make for a better Halloween. “Having sidewalks and good lighting is a good preventive measure, not just for injury prevention, but also just general health,” Lee told me, “because that encourages everybody in the neighborhood to walk, exercise, and get outside, which is better for everybody’s health as well.”

And if their safety isn’t enough motivation, designing dense, walkable cities could even lead to bigger candy hauls for kids. 

“When you build a city that’s safer, so that kids can walk around by themselves and not be worried about getting hit by a car, or the parents being worried about them being hit by a car, it’s just better,” Gordon said. “It’s awesome. They’re independent. It’s fun. And on Halloween, they get a lot of candy.”

Correction, October 31, 4 pm ET: A previous version of this story had an inaccurate definition of the equation for force.

Update, October 30, 2026, 10 am ET: This story has been updated to include new federal crash data.

Pope Leo XIV says AI systems should be "disarmed," adding that humans "have the responsibility to guide, change and, when necessary, reject its applications." In Friday's Papal Address, Pope Leo encourages United Nations member states to "take concrete steps toward banning lethal autonomous weapons" during their meeting in Geneva next month.

The address reflects many of the ideas Pope Leo laid out in his first major papal document in May, which highlighted "safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence." In line with his encyclical, Pope Leo tells participants that "Machines are tools, not persons," and warns about th …

Read the full story at The Verge.