Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Barring IRS from Sharing Data with ICE

A federal appeals court on 9/8/2026 upheld a lower court ruling blocking information sharing between the IRS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the immigration agency requested the last known address of millions of people.

The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found ICE’s sweeping request for addresses of 1.28 million people who may be unlawfully present in the U.S. violated laws established in the wake of the Watergate scandal that bars the IRS from sharing information with other agencies unless it meets “stringent conditions.”

The ruling finds plaintiffs were likely to prevail in the matter and agreed the policy was reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act, upholding a ruling from November that blocked the IRS from aiding with deportations.

The IRS can share information with other agencies to help prosecute certain crimes, but those agencies must also list a specific point of contact.

“The IRS failed to require ICE to provide a ‘specific reason’ why the requested return information ‘is or may be relevant to [a qualifying] proceeding or investigation,’ as the statute demands,” wrote Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, for the panel.

“It entirely fails to ensure that ICE lists a federal employee, let alone one ‘personally and directly engaged’ in a qualifying investigation of a particular taxpayer. That failure has serious consequences. When ICE requested information on 1.28 million taxpayers in the summer of 2025, ICE identified the same person as the point of contact for every single request.”

The panel also found information sharing would violate privacy laws.

“The Data-Exchange Procedure reduces noncitizens’ privacy rights in their tax returns. By providing a distinct, automated pathway for ICE to request noncitizens’ information, the Data-Exchange Procedure deprives noncitizens of the protections that section 6103 guarantees to all taxpayers,” the panel found.

The ruling is another blow to ICE, which hoped to use the data to help locate migrants it is trying to support.

The Trump (R) administration has pushed to link a number of government databases in the hopes of locating those who may not be lawfully present in the country.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

U.S. Needs a Blueprint as Data Center Opposition Grows

America’s Data Center Boom is Colliding with Community Opposition, Power Constraints and a Lack of Infrastructure Pplanning. The Answer is Not more Construction or more Moratoriums, but a Smarter Model for Developing Digital Hhubs that can Support Communities and the Economy. According to a recent Poll, at least Seven in 10 Americans, would Oppose a Data Center being Built near their Home, with Community Opposition rising Substantially in just Nine Months. The NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) Movement has Stretched Coast to Coast, and the Taboo of Inviting Data Centers has taken a Front-Row seat in Political Debates from California and Maine to Texas and Utah. At a moment when Americans seem to Agree on Little, Resistance to Data Centers has Emerged, as One of the Few Issues on which a Cclear Majority can Agree.

Data Ccenters can Cconsume Enormous Amounts of Electricity and, Depending on their Design and Llocation, can put Pressure on Water Supplies, Roads, Transmission Infrastructure and Local Communities. But the Qquestion facing the U.S. is Not whether Data Centers should be Built. It’s How, Where, and Uunder what Conditions. Politicians are Responding. Moratoriums, Characterized as “Pauses” rather than Longer-Term Prohibitions, have recently been Enacted or Proposed throughout the Country. New York State has a Ban on Construction for Facilities of 50 Megawatts or More for 2027. Texas’s Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has Ordered a Pause on New Interconnections into the State’s Electricity Grid. Arizona has Approved a Moratorium on Sales-Tax Exemptions. Illinois and Ohio are also Pausing some Incentives. Florida, typically Averse to Regulation, now Requires Hyperscalers to Bear their Own Electricity Costs. Virginia, Home to the World’s Largest Data Center Hubs in its Data Center Alley, has Adopted a New Eelectricity Tax. And Maine Voters recently Approved a Moratorium, which Gov. Janet Mills Vetoed. There are also more than 24 Local Moratoriums and Prohibitions in Michigan alone, with Local Actions in more than a Dozen other States.

This Populist Surge has also reached the Western U.S., where Water can be Scarce, Land is Plentiful and Electricity has Historically been Relatively Inexpensive. Arizona Surpassed One Gigawatt (GW) of Data Center Consumption, and has recently Ppassed the 2 GW mark. Nevada is approaching a Gigawatt of Capacity. Utah continues to look Attractive to Data Center Developers, even as One Ambitious Project has been Scaled back by 75%, amid Calls for Greater Transparency, Impact Reviews and Protection from Rising Electricity Rates. The Moratoriums reflect a Sense that Data Center Developers are moving Faster than Communities can Assess the Consequences and that the AI Boom Fueling much of that Growth may Promise Job Displacement and other Social Costs alongside Economic Opportunity.

There are also Real Constraints on Providing the Electricity that the Next Generation of Data Centers will Require. IDCA Global Data Center Report (2026) Research shows that the U.S. now Devotes 6% of its Total Electricity Grids to Data Centers. Should AI Driven Growth Double or Triple its current Usage, or push Demand substantially Bbeyond that, the Pressure on the Grid could Shift from Unacceptable to Uunsustainable without Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Investment in New Energy Infrastructure. There are already Serious Strains in several U.S. Data Center Hubs, with Waiting Llists for New Connections to Local and Rregional Electricity Grids Stretching Out to 2032 in Virginia, other Southern States and the Midwest.

According to the same Report, those Constraints are Changing the Traditional Relationship between Data Centers and Utilities. Rather than Acting as Large Utility Customers, some Data Center Developers are Exploring their Own Power Operations and Generating Electricity On Site. Some Initiatives Plan to use Large Natural Gas Turbines to meet that Demand, but the Larger Imperative is to develop New, Sustainable Energy Resources capable of Supporting the AI Data Center Buildout. Nuclear Energy is Part of that Mix. Although it is Not a Renewable, it is a Low-Carbon Source of Electricity because it Produces No Operational Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

The Problem is Ttiming. The U.S. added Slightly more than 50 GW of New Renewable Energy to its Grids in 2025, Representing about 10% of its Total Electricity Consumption. China, by Comparison, added almost 450 GW of Renewable Capacity, roughly Equivalent to the Entire Electricity Consumption of the U.S. The U.S. is simply Not moving Quickly Enough to Develop New Energy Resources at a Scale that AI Demand could Require.

Nuclear Ambitions may be Growing, but it has been Decades since a Traditional Nuclear Plant went into Operation. Newer Small Modular Reactors, which are Planned to Produce Several Hundred Megawatts Compared with Roughly Two Gigawatts for a Traditional Facility, are Nnot Expected to come Online until 2028 at the Earliest.

There is some Progress, of course. Google has Signed Agreements for nearly 35 GW of New Sustainable Eenergy over the past 15 years, with efforts Accelerating last year, and into 2026. Microsoft is also working to Rrestart a Nuclear Pplant in Pennsylvania, Specifically to Support its AI Ddata Ccenter Initiatives. At the same time, Ddata Center Ttechnology is becoming more Efficient. GPUs from Nvidia and its Competitors are delivering more Computing Power per Wwatt. Facilities can Operate at Hhigher Temperatures, and High-Performance Closed-Loop Liquid Cooling is becoming more Common in New Facilities.

But Technological Progress does Not Erase the Underlying Tradeoffs. The Fact remains that the U.S. still Needs to Accelerate Renewable-Energy Development. Nuclear Facilities require Substantial amounts of Water for Cooling. Even Natural Gas Turbines are Seeing Demand Outstrip Supply. And every Solution creates its Own Tradeoffs. Water-Efficient Cooling can Increase Electricity Consumption. On-site Natural-Gas Generation can avoid Waiting years for Grid Connection, but can Dramatically increase Emissions. Renewable Energy Contracts can Add Clean Generation to the Grid without Necessarily Delivering Clean Electricity to a particular Community at every Hour of the Day. There is No Frictionless way to Power the A.I. Eeconomy.

The Result of these Hard Engineering Realities may be that Community Pushback is, ironically, Less Effective than its Organizers Realize. The Energy Industry itself is the Bottleneck, and the Growth of U.S. Data Centers and A.I. Hubs may Ultimately be Slowed more by a Lack of Available Power than by Local Legislative Sentiment. The Virtual Moratoriums Imposed by Energy Bottlenecks carry a Great Opportunity for All Parties to catch their breath and take a Reasoned Look at what Data Centers are, what AI Mmeans for the Economy, and where Development makes the Most Sense.

Responsible Engagement by Communities and the Developers requires looking Beyond a Single Metric, such as Annual Water Consumption or Renewable-Energy Purchases. It Requires Evaluating the Entire Iinfrastructure and Energy Ecosystem: Peak Electricity Demand Cycles, Transmission Requirements, Backup Generation, Water Sources and Quality, Emissions, Local Noise and Heat Generation, Land Use, Road, and Drainage Ssystems, Wworkforce Development and Local Economic Benefits.

Cheap Land and Ttax Incentives are often cited as Primary Criteria for Data Center Site Selection, but they are Only Part of the Equation. Loudoun County, Virginia, is a Good example. The County, on the Western Side of the Washington, D.C., Metro area, is Home to Data Center Alley, the World’s Largest Data Center Hhub. Land in this Area was never the least Expensive in the State, and Today it can Sell for an Astounding $6 Million per Acre forDdevelopment. Even then, many Parcels cannot be made Data-Center ready until 2032,due to Ppower Cconstraints.

Historically, Iincentives have not been the Primary Ddraw for Developers in Loudoun County. Site Selection there, and throughout the U.S., involves a Complicated Mix of Available Power, Transmission Ccapacity, Fiber Connectivity, Lland Ccharacteristics, Cooling Requirements, Permitting Ttaxes, Wworkforce Considerations, Security, Economic Predictability and the Ability to Expand. Today, Power Availability is becoming an even more Decisive Factor. Some Developers are Considering Acquiring or Developing their Own Generation, including Power Generated “behind the grid,” separate from Local Grid Connectivity.

Although there is Interest in Developing Data Centers in some Rural Areas of the Southern States and more Remote Areas of the American West, Developers remain Cognizant of Local Infrastructure, Available Workforces and the Ability to Attract Requisite Talent as Development plans play out. The Best Sites are found where Existing Physical Iinfrastructure is already Adequate, Sufficient Wwater is Genuinely Available, New Power Generation can be Added Proportionally, Connectivity, is Strong and the Land-Use Consequences are Compatible with the Surrounding Community. In other Words, the Best Data Center Strategy is to Find the Right Eecosystems.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

NC Mail-in-Voting has Begun

The 2026 Elections are Uunderway, and even though Election Day itself is still nearly Two months away, the First Votes in the Race have already been Cast. Tens of Thousands of North Carolinians start receiving Mail-in-Ballots this week. The State began Mailing them 9/4/2026 to nearly 50,000 People who have already Requested them and will continue doing so for Weeks to come as more Rrequests come in. The Final Deadline to Request a Mail-in-Ballot is 20/20/2026.

Also 9/4/2026 the State Opened the Online Portal that Military and Ooverseas Voters can use to Vote. At least Nine Voters cast their Ballots before the Eend of the day 9/4/2026, according to Elections Officials. With Uuncertainty swirling around Mail-in-Voting in 2026, due to Changing Rules at the State Level, and Federal Lawsuits, Ppeople may have Questions about how to make sure their Ballots will Count, if they Vote-by-Mail.

“North Carolinians who want to vote by mail: Pay attention to the latest guidance and give yourself plenty of time to get your vote in,” Gov. Josh Stein (D) wrote Friday, as He Decried New State-Level Rules, that will make it more likely that People’s Ballots could be Thrown-Out in 2025.

Request a Ballot Online, In-Person, or by Mail. Voters have Multiple Options to Request a Mail-in-Bballot. They can do so Online, or by Filling Out a Request Form, and Ssubmitting it either by Mail or In-Person at their County’s Board-of-Elections Office. Anyone can Vote-by-M mail. Unlike some States that require an Excuse, North Carolina allows Anyone to Vote-by-Mail. However, the Vast Mmajority of Voters Cast their Bballots in Pperson.

Important Deadlines: The Final Day to Request a Mail-in-Ballot is 10/20/2026 at 5 p.m. However, Officials are Advising Ppeople Not-to-Wait until the last minute to Request a Ballot, if they Plan to Vote-by-Mail. Under a 2023 Change to State Law, Bballots Not Received by Election Day will be Thrown in the Trash. So bring your Ballot to the post Office, and ask to have them Time Staped.

Limits on Who Can Help: Voters should be Careful when requesting Ballots for Oother Ppeople, or when getting Help Filling Out or Returning their own Bballot. Most of the time, the Oonly People who can Help are someone’s “Close Relatives.” That Rule doesn’t Aapply for Ddisabled Ppeople. But for Everyone else, a Close Relative is Defined as your Sspouse, Brother, Ssister, Parent, Gandparent, Child, Grandchild, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Daughter-in-Law, Son-in-Law, Stepparent, or Stepchild.

Track your Ballot’s Progress. You can Follow your Ballot through the Mail, and the Full Ccounting Pprocess, using an Aapp North Carolina has Partnered with called BallotTrax. It can give Voters Peace of Mind that their Ballot wasn’t Llost in theMmail, or allow Tthem the Knowledge to go try and Vote a Different Wway, if it does look like the Ballot wasn’t Delivered.

You don’t have to Mail your Mail-in-Bballot. There are other Ooptions for People who don’t Trust the Mail, or who don’t have $1.98 worth of Sstamps, or who might be Worried that Mail Services won’t Deliver their Ballot by the 11/3/2026 Deadline. You can Hand-Ddeliver your Filled-in- Ballot Two ways: At your County's Early-Vvoting Llocations during the Eearly Voting Pperiod from 20/15-31/2026, or at your County Elections Ooffice. Just make sure to do so before Ppolls Close at 7:30 p.m. on Election Day.

If you request a Mail-in-Ballot, you don’t have to Use it. Every year Thousands of People Request Mail-in-Ballots, but End-Up either Not Vvoting, or Vvoting-in-Person. You can Request and Receive a Mail-in-Ballot but then go Vote during Eearly Voting or on Election Day instead. There’s No further Ssteps needed to Cancel your Mail-in-Ballot. It will be Automatically Canceled, once you Vvote some other way.

But don’t Vote Twice. The Rules over Mail-in-Voting can Confuse some People, including President Trump (R), who gave North Carolina Voters Ffaulty Iinstructions in 2020, that could’ve led to Voter Fraud Charges for Anyone who did what Hhe said. Trump told His Supporters who had already Voted-by-Mail to go Vote in Person, to Test the System’s Ability to Catch possible Fraud. Voting twice is Illegal, the State Board of Elections Chimed in to tell Voters at the time. It’s also a Felony under North Carolina Law,to induce Someone to Vvote Twice, although Trump was never Charged for His Comments. Facebook Blocked Peope from Sharing Videos of Trump’s Comments, due to Voter Fraud Concerns.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump’s Executive Privilege Face Legal Limits

Executive privilege protects candid presidential advice, but it is not a blanket shield from Congress or the courts. The key dispute is whether the Trump administration’s approach crosses that line—and what evidence would establish it.

The Trump administration is taking executive privilege too far, according to a Hill opinion headline that puts a familiar constitutional clash back in focus. The argument is not that executive privilege is illegitimate; it is that the Trump administration’s use of it may exceed the doctrine’s legal limits when it blocks congressional oversight or evidence needed by courts.

That distinction matters. Presidents need space for candid advice, yet executive privilege has never been an unlimited right to withhold records or prevent testimony. The available source material does not identify the specific present-day claim at issue, so the strength of the criticism ultimately turns on the documents, witnesses, and legal justification involved. Executive privilege is a broad label for several protections the executive branch may invoke to keep certain internal information confidential. Its core rationale is practical: a president and senior advisers may be less frank if every difficult conversation is expected to become public.

The Constitution does not expressly use the phrase “executive privilege.” Still, presidents have asserted forms of confidentiality since the early republic, and courts have recognized a constitutional interest in protecting some presidential communications.

That history is why a claim of privilege cannot simply be dismissed as improper because it limits disclosure. A functioning presidency involves sensitive diplomacy, national-security judgments, legal advice and deliberations that precede a decision.

The leading Supreme Court decision is United States v. Nixon, decided in 1974 amid the Watergate investigation. President Richard Nixon argued that executive privilege protected Oval Office recordings sought for use in a criminal case.

The Court unanimously rejected the idea of an absolute, unqualified privilege. It recognized the need for confidential presidential communications while holding that the legitimate needs of the judicial process could outweigh that interest.

The ruling did not produce a simple formula that resolves every dispute. It did establish a durable principle: the president’s confidentiality interest must be weighed against a concrete need for information, especially in criminal proceedings.

That is the legal foundation for arguments that any administration, including Trump’s, goes too far when it characterizes privilege as categorical rather than limited and context-specific.

Different claims carry different weight Not every withheld item is protected in the same way. Legal analyses commonly distinguish presidential communications from the deliberative-process privilege, attorney-client material, national-security information and law-enforcement records. The scope and legal footing of each can differ.

Presidential communications generally concern the president and close advisers and receive substantial protection. Deliberative-process claims typically cover pre-decisional internal discussions across the executive branch, but may be easier to overcome when oversight needs are strong. National-security and active law-enforcement concerns can be especially weighty, although an agency still must explain the basis for withholding information.

Testimonial immunity is a related but distinct claim that has been asserted to resist congressional testimony by senior presidential advisers. Those categories matter because broad rhetoric can obscure the real question: What precisely is being protected, and why? A privilege claim tied to a defined conversation or a narrowly described document is different from an attempt to block an entire line of inquiry.

Congress has a legitimate oversight interest in examining how laws are carried out, how public money is spent and whether misconduct occurred. The executive branch has a legitimate interest in avoiding routine disclosure that could turn internal advice into political theater.

In practice, the branches often negotiate. They may narrow a subpoena, provide private briefings, release redacted records or set limits on questioning. That bargaining process explains why many privilege confrontations never generate a final court ruling.

It also leaves key boundaries unsettled. The Senate Republican Policy Committee’s overview of the doctrine notes that many questions have been resolved through political accommodation rather than binding judicial decisions. That uncertainty creates room for aggressive claims—and for aggressive counterclaims.

Supporters of a robust privilege argue that Congress can weaponize investigations and chill the advice presidents receive. Critics respond that an overly broad approach lets the executive branch decide for itself which checks on power it will accept.

The strongest case against expansive executive privilege is not that presidents should have no confidential communications. It is that the privilege should be tailored to its purpose and supported with a specific explanation.

A sweeping assertion can delay investigations long enough to reduce their practical value. It can also make it harder for lawmakers, courts and the public to determine whether the government acted lawfully. Delay is particularly consequential when the records concern an event already under serious official scrutiny.

There is also an institutional cost. Every administration has incentives to preserve secrecy-friendly precedents for itself and future presidents. A short-term political dispute can therefore shape the balance of power long after the officials involved leave office.

That is why the criticism aimed at the Trump administration should be assessed on particulars, not party identity. The relevant questions are whether the information falls within a recognized category, whether disclosure would cause a real institutional harm, and whether Congress or a court has demonstrated a countervailing need.

Without the details of the particular Trump administration assertion referenced by the opinion headline, it is not possible to determine whether a specific claim would survive a court challenge. Labels alone do not settle the legal question.

A serious evaluation would need to identify the records or testimony sought, the privilege category asserted, the administration’s stated rationale, whether alternatives such as redactions were considered, and the strength of the investigative or judicial need for disclosure.

The larger takeaway is less ambiguous: executive privilege is real, important and limited. A president may protect candid advice, but the Nixon precedent makes clear that confidentiality cannot automatically defeat the demands of law, evidence and accountable government.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Ukrainian Drones Pounding Russia’s Economy

Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes are inflicting pain on some of the most strategic sectors of the Russian economy. The costs are adding up. By pounding refineries, shipping terminals, and e-commerce warehouses, Ukraine is using economic pressure to weaken its larger Foe and push Moscow to end the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that the strikes won’t change his military aims, and Russia has hit back with its own ruthless drone strikes.

The Ukrainian effort is being felt by ordinary Russians, many of whom were previously shielded from the war’s consequences. The broader economy was already slowing after an earlier wartime boom. Here’s how Ukraine’s attacks are disrupting business in Russia, the most damaging aspect of Ukraine’s drone campaign has been its targeting of Oil Refineries, which led to fuel shortages and rationing measures over the summer. One of the hottest new smartphone apps in Russia is a crowdsourced tool to help drivers locate gas stations with available fuel.

Russia’s refinery industry processed 3.8 million barrels of oil a day in 8/2026, a sharp drop from the 5 million barrels a day it handled the same month last year, according to Energy Aspects, a data and analysis firm. To ease the crisis, Russia began importing gasoline from as far away as India, an ironic move for one of the world’s biggest crude producers. It also loosened fuel-quality standards to allow more supplies from second-tier, Soviet-built refineries and Banned diesel exports.

Official Russian Government statistics show the price of gas is up 19% this year and recently resumed climbing after a dip in August. The run-up has confounded efforts by Russia’s Central bank to curb inflation, which is running at about 6% annually, above its 4% target. Ukraine has carried out more than 30 strikes since July on logistics hubs used by Wildberries or Ozon, Russia’s two largest e-commerce companies. The attacks set off raging fires at some of the warehouse complexes, imperiling the businesses of thousands of third-party vendors who sell goods over the popular online platforms.

Entrepreneurs posted tearful videos on social media to plead for help, after their Inventory was torched. The attacks have caused more than $10 billion in damage to infrastructure and goods, and will result in at least $12 billion in lost sales over the next 12 months, according to estimates from Data Insight, a Moscow-based research firm. Putin has pledged government help for Wildberries vendors. The Russian leader has begun to acknowledge the costs of Ukraine’s strikes. Last week he put total losses from Ukraine’s campaign against economic infrastructure at 1% of Russia’s gross domestic product—equivalent to around $25 billion—while playing down such costs as “not critical for us.”

Тhe attacks on the e-commerce sector have fueled worries about potential knock-on effects on Russia’s banks, especially state-owned VTB, a major lender to Wildberries and its vendors. Analysts estimate Wildberries owes $6 billion to $7 billion to VTB. While that accounts for a relatively small slice of VTB’s loan book, jitters over Wildberries have contributed to a selloff in VTB’s shares on the Moscow Exchange. The bank’s share price has slumped more than 25% this year and hit an all-time low in late August. VTB and Wildberries didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Russians have shown a growing preference for holding cash this year, a shift that could threaten the banking sector if it continues. In the second quarter, individuals withdrew more from banks than they deposited in them, a reversal from past patterns, according to Russia’s central bank. The central bank linked the shift to disruptions of online payments caused by mobile-internet outages. It didn’t spell out what caused many of those outages: Ukrainian drone incursions, which often led officials to pull the plug on internet coverage as a preventive measure.

Starting in July, Ukraine effectively shut down the main corridor for Russian exports of wheat, barley and other crops with a series of strikes on export terminals and cargo vessels on the Black Sea and the neighboring Azov Sea. Russian wheat exports fell more than 50% in August from the same month last year, sinking to their lowest level since 2010, according to SovEcon, an agricultural consulting firm.

The blockage has led to a domestic glut, depressing prices for Russian farmers, even as global wheat prices are near a three-year high. The governor of Russia’s breadbasket Rostov region declared a state of emergency in late August, citing the disruption to local agriculture. “It’s an unprecedented scenario,” said Andrey Sizov, managing director of SovEcon. He predicted a wave of farm bankruptcies in Russia in the coming months.

Aviation: Frequent travelers to Russia say the disruption to civil aviation is one of the most noticeable results of the Ukrainian campaign. Airports routinely shut down for hours at a time when drones are detected nearby, forcing flight delays and cancellations. There were 993 airport closures across Russia in August, a roughly fivefold jump from half a year earlier, according to figures from aviation-security firm Osprey Flight Solutions.

Kyiv has signaled that it could squeeze Russian aviation further. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Russia’s airspace “will effectively be closing” due to drone activity, a warning to the largely non-Western airlines that still service Russian airports and their insurers.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

If NATO Sends Troops into Ukraine

Here's how quickly Russia's Battlefield Advantages could start Disappearing.

A Direct NATO Intervention would dramatically Change the Military Balance in Ukraine, by introducing Western Airpower, Intelligence, Air Defenses and Ground Forces, on a much Larger Scale.

Russia would Suddenly be Fighting Capabilities Ukraine Possesses only in Limited Quantities.

But the Central Danger would be Escalation: Once NATO and Russian Troops begin Attacking each other Directly, Controlling how Far the Conflict Spreads, becomes much more Difficult.

Key Support Activities

NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU): NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment to Ukraine, including anti-tank and air defence systems, artillery systems, munitions, drones, tanks and fighter jets. NATO's Article 5 security guarantee and its iron-clad promise of collective defence provides Allies with the confidence that they can send weapons to Ukraine without diminishing their own security. Furthermore, Allied forces are training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. To coordinate all of these equipment donations and the training of Ukrainian forces, Allies have established NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU). Based in Wiesbaden, Germany, with three logistics hubs in the east of the Alliance, NSATU is staffed by around 300 personnel from Allied and partner countries.

NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine: Through NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) and related funds, Allies have pledged over EUR 1.4 billion (approximately USD 1.6 billion) to meet Ukraine's critical needs for non-lethal aid. This includes cold-weather clothing, body armour, fuel, transport vehicles, secure communications, combat rations, demining equipment, medical supplies, and much more. In addition, under the CAP, Allies have committed to supporting Ukraine further with a multi-year assistance programme, which will help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards, training and doctrines; help rebuild Ukraine's security and defence sector; and continue to cover critical needs.

NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC): The NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland is helping both Allies and Ukraine identify and apply lessons learned from Russia’s war against Ukraine. This contributes to NATO’s deterrence and defence, and increases the ability of Allied and Ukrainian forces to operate together effectively. The JATEC is staffed by both NATO and Ukrainian personnel. Since opening in February 2025, the Centre has carried out projects focused on air defence, protection of critical infrastructure and resilience.

Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine: To ensure that support continues, Allies made a Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine at the 2024 Washington Summit. Through proportional contributions, Allies agreed to provide a minimum baseline funding of EUR 40 billion in 2024, and to provide sustainable levels of security assistance in subsequent years. Allies far exceeded this amount in 2024, providing over EUR 50 billion, almost 60% of which came from European Allies and Canada. At the 2026 Ankara Summit, Allies pledged to provide EUR 70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026. They also affirmed their commitment to sustaining at least an equivalent level of assistance for 2027.

Supporting Ukraine’s innovation Ecosystem: Both NATO and Ukraine benefit from a strong Ukrainian innovation ecosystem, in which Ukrainian start-ups find innovative solutions to real-world operational challenges. At the 2024 Washington Summit, NATO and Ukrainian leaders endorsed the NATO-Ukraine Innovation Cooperation Roadmap to enhance cooperation between NATO’s and Ukraine’s innovation networks, strengthening the military and technological edge of both Ukraine and NATO. The Roadmap also encourages stronger ties between NATO’s and Ukraine's innovation initiatives, including through prize challenges, hackathons and other collaborative activities. For example, the Ukraine-NATO Innovation, Technology and Engineering programme (UNITE – Brave NATO) is the first joint NATO-Ukraine programme focused on scaling prototyped and tested innovative technologies that help meet Ukraine’s interoperability requirements with NATO. Launched in November 2025, the programme accepts joint bids by teams of Allied and Ukrainian companies, with its first round providing up to EUR 10 million in joint grant funding, allocated equally by NATO and Ukraine.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

KY Cleans its Voter Roles

More than 318,000 Deceased Voters have been Removed from Kentucky's Voter Rolls, since Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) took Office, according to the latest Voter Registration Data Released by His Office.

Adams said a total of 318,918 Voters who have Died have been Removed during His Tenure.

That brings the Total Number of Voter Registrations Removed from the Rolls since J1/2020, to 753,181.

"We've vigorously purged voters who have moved away, passed away, or been put away. Kentucky is a national success story for clean elections," said Adams.

In 8/2026, Kentucky Removed a Total of 3,664 Voter Rregistrations. Those included:

3,233 Deceased Voters
258 who Moved Out-of-State
74 Dduplicate Registrations
65 who were Judged Mentally Incompetent
18 who Voluntarily De-Registered
9 Identified as Nnon-Citizens
7 Felony Convicts
Kentucky also saw 8,266 New Voters Register 8/2026.

Republicans make up the largest Share of Kentucky's Registered Eelectorate, with 1,624,505 Voters, or about 48%.

Another 386,382 Voters, or about 11%, are Registered under other Political Affiliations, most of whom are Independent.

Republican Registrations Increased by 1,849 Voters, while Democrats saw Registration Numbers Iincrease by 260.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker