September 29, 2026 – Short News

Our short news today: Nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer money for Trump ads, Judge Amir Ali blocks an attempt to tie counterterrorism funding to election rules, Hegseth sends the military and intelligence agencies in to protect election systems, Russia plans to spend more than $200 billion on the military, and Trump eases fuel economy rules for cars - with consequences for gas costs and the climate.

$1.5 Million From the Public Purse for Trump Ads - Now Even Republicans Are Push­ing Back

Nearly $1.5 million in public money has now gone into 3 television ads praising Donald Trump. They are running during college football, professional league programming and on television networks across the country. Every one of them ends with the same message: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” The White House still will not say which part of the government is actually footing the bill. The first ad shows Trump fighting communism and credits him with the “largest tax cuts in history” and reviving American manufacturing. The second combines images of Mount Rushmore with excerpts from his speech marking the 250th anniversary of the United States. Number 3 comes especially close to campaign advertising: Trump walks down a hallway while his voice warns of a “final battle” against “globalists” and “warmongers.” Nearly the same images and words were used in his 2024 reelection campaign.

The White House calls the films public service announcements and points to previous administrations that used taxpayer money to promote Medicare, health insurance or vaccinations. The difference this time is that there is no program the public is being told how to use. Several legal experts therefore see possible violations of federal law. Appropriated funds may not be used for “publicity or propaganda,” and there are also limits on partisan political activity by government employees. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, calls the 3 films pure propaganda. Law professor Kathleen Clark sees them as advertising designed to benefit Trump. The White House argues that Trump is not on the ballot in November and that the ads contain no call to vote. The films, it says, are meant to remind Americans to love their country and understand why it is worth defending. The administration is now even pointing to government advertising under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 2 World Wars as historical justification.

The pushback is no longer coming only from Democrats. More than a dozen of them are demanding answers about the cost and financing, but Republicans are now objecting openly as well. Majority Leader John Thune said taxpayer money should not be used for this. Senator Mike Rounds said he would not have done it. Republican Senator John Kennedy said no public official should spend public money on personal advertising. Thomas Massie was even sharper, writing that ominous presidential campaign-style ads paid for by taxpayers have certainly been seen before - in banana republics. More than $1.4 million has already been spent, according to estimates from an advertising tracking company, and the actual amount could be higher. Meanwhile, the Republican chairs of the appropriations committees remain silent. So the question is remarkably simple: Which government agency is paying for these ads, and which budget are the millions coming from?

Judge Amir Ali Draws the Line: Trump Cannot Turn Counterterrorism Funding Into a Weapon Over Election Rules

Donald Trump’s administration wanted to withhold counterterrorism money if states and local governments refused to remake their elections according to rules coming from Washington. Federal Judge Amir Ali has stopped the effort. In his 24-page ruling, he found that Congress had never given the agencies involved the authority to attach those conditions to the grants. He also found that the required connection between the election rules and the purpose of the funding was missing. More than $1 billion is at stake, money meant to help states and local governments protect themselves against terrorist attacks and cyberattacks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency wanted to hold back 20 percent of certain grants until recipients complied with Trump’s conditions.

The demands had little to do with traditional counterterrorism. The citizenship of every registered voter and election worker was supposed to be verified. Jurisdictions using electronic voting systems based on barcodes or QR codes were supposed to submit plans for hand-marked paper ballots. Every election authority was also supposed to prove that results were audited. Columbus, Nashville and several counties in Texas went to court. Their argument was straightforward: Congress gave FEMA money for public safety, not permission to decide who may vote or how votes are counted.

25 state attorneys general or governors have filed a similar lawsuit over comparable requirements. The plaintiffs in this case called the administration’s approach a gross abuse of power. Harris County accused Washington of using community safety as a bargaining chip for partisan politics. That is exactly where Amir Ali stepped in. The president cannot simply attach conditions to federal counterterrorism money when Congress has provided no legal authority for doing so. Trump’s administration tried to impose election rules by putting security money on a leash. It did not hold up in court.

Trump Guts Civilian Election Security - Hegseth Now Sends in the Military and Intelligence Agencies

First the civilian agency responsible for election security was cut back. Now, just weeks before the midterms, the NSA and military cyber forces are supposed to step in and do work that had already been covered. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the services to mobilize “every resource” to protect election systems from foreign interference. On paper, that sounds routine. Under this administration, the timing is the problem. Voting is already underway in parts of the country, Election Day is November 3, and Washington is expanding its role in an area that has traditionally been largely left to the states. Hegseth’s order comes after the Trump administration sharply weakened the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. That agency was created specifically to protect election technology and other critical infrastructure. Experts were fired, responsibilities were cut back, and now the military is showing up again. David Becker, a former Justice Department official, calls it theater. His point is hard to brush aside: If the administration truly wanted to help states, it would not first fire the people hired to do exactly that, then announce a new security push right before an election.

Trump’s own role adds another layer. He continues to spread unsupported claims about widespread election fraud while simultaneously trying to change established election procedures. The Supreme Court blocked his attempt to restrict mail voting. His administration is, for now, allowed to use a federal database to check voters’ citizenship. Civil rights groups and election officials are therefore watching more closely than usual when this particular administration moves the military apparatus closer to election systems. The NSA and Cyber Command have helped fight hackers before. That is the straightforward part of the story. The other part is this: Trump weakens the civilian security structure, publicly questions election procedures and then sends Hegseth in with the military and intelligence agencies to “protect” the election. That sequence turns a technical job into a political issue.

Russia Plans to Spend More Than $200 Billion on the Military in 2027 - and Even That May Be Too Low

Russia’s government plans to spend the equivalent of about $202.4 billion on “national defense” in 2027. The budget calls for 17.1 trillion rubles. Compared with the 12.93 trillion rubles budgeted for military spending in 2026, about $153 billion, that would be an increase of 32.2 percent. As recently as the end of 2025, Moscow had planned to spend only about $159.8 billion in 2027. That calculation is already outdated. The war is burning through money faster than the budget can keep up. Spending in 2028 will also remain far above earlier plans. The government now intends to spend around $196.5 billion instead of the roughly $153.8 billion previously projected. Over the next 3 years, Russia plans to spend at least about $591.7 billion on defense. Even that figure may still trail the actual cost. Economist Janis Kluge calculates that Russia spent around $126.6 billion on military needs in the first half of 2026 alone. That would amount to 83 percent of what had officially been planned for the entire year.

That makes the 2027 figure look less enormous than it first appears. If the pace of spending seen in 2026 continues, actual military expenditures could exceed the new annual plan even before then. At the same time, the hole in Russia’s state budget is getting larger. The Finance Ministry now expects the 2026 deficit to reach 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, or around $86.4 billion. The original estimate was about $45 billion. Russia is therefore planning for more years of wartime spending and raising the bill before the relevant budget year has even begun. The military gets more money while the state sinks much deeper into deficit. The budget says more than any speech about holding out: Moscow is not planning on this war ending cheaply.

Trump Makes Cars Officially “Cheaper” - and Leaves Drivers to Pay Later at the Pump

Donald Trump is selling the new fuel economy rules as a gift to American drivers. His administration is sharply lowering the requirements for average fleet fuel economy. For the 2031 model year, manufacturers will now have to reach only 34.9 miles per gallon. Under the previous rules, the target was 49.3. The transportation agency calculates that this could reduce the average price of a new vehicle in 2031 by $1,289. Trump is already talking about “thousands” of dollars in savings for families. There is just one small catch in his own administration’s math: It works only if automakers actually pass those lower costs on to buyers. Experts have serious doubts that they will. The average new vehicle now costs more than $50,000, while Trump’s tariffs are also pushing manufacturers’ costs higher. Jessica Caldwell of the vehicle research service Edmunds therefore expects any savings to disappear there first. Stephanie Brinley of Mobility Global also considers it unrealistic that buyers will suddenly see a car with a price tag $1,300 lower in the showroom. Even the transportation agency acknowledges that in some model years the additional fuel costs could exceed the supposed savings on the purchase price.

Less demanding fuel economy rules mean more fuel burned over the life of a vehicle. Right now, that is difficult to shrug off. Gasoline has become significantly more expensive since the war with Iran, while American buyers are showing more interest in hybrid vehicles. Any financial advantage at the dealership can therefore disappear later at the gas pump. Then there is the environmental bill. Vehicles that burn more fuel release more carbon dioxide over the years and increase American demand for oil. The administration is rolling back a rule that was designed to reduce both operating costs and climate-damaging emissions.

Trump has already pushed the American auto market away from electric vehicles in several ways. The $7,500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle was eliminated, financial penalties for manufacturers that missed fuel economy targets were removed, and now the targets themselves are being lowered. Automakers are unlikely to abandon electric vehicles anyway. They develop new models years in advance and sell in a global market where electric vehicles continue to gain importance. So for now, Trump’s big price promise comes down to one number on a government document: maybe $1,289 cheaper at the time of purchase, more gasoline afterward, and more emissions for years.