data

For aerospace aficionados, it’s like we have entered into an alternate dream reality. The idea that we are seriously talking about the possibility of bringing back the SR-71 Blackbird to flight status is hard to comprehend, but amazingly this is where we are at. The biggest question I am getting about all this is why? We touched on the likely primary answer to that in our original reporting — high-speed is back in tactical vogue, and the Blackbird can sustain it in a realm of great interest, between Mach 3 and 4, and do it over and over again. It can also carry very large things and even launch them off its back at those extreme speeds. But those are not the only potential reasons for taking on such a gargantuan, high-profile, and costly technical challenge. Learning from the journey itself could be just as valuable as the actual flight test data a revived SR-71 produces.

Let me explain.

The Blackbird was as close to alien tech as it gets over 60 years ago, and even today, we have nothing like it in known operation. Yet it has been dormant for nearly three decades. Much of the expertise that built, supported, and operated it is sadly gone. But the exercises of reverse engineering and leveraging breakthroughs in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping, as well as injecting new material sciences, avionics, propulsion and other technologies where applicable, and above all else, building the digital toolkit to make it all happen as fast and efficiently as it can be done, are all of extreme learning value.

I would not be surprised if a ‘digital twin’ is being created right now of the SR-71 using NASA’s SR-71 tail number 844 — the jet in question that has mysteriously disappeared from its display pad. Once such a model exists, breakthroughs in digital engineering can be brought to bear to see how fast the program can be accelerated, both in terms of development and flight testing. This could include not only getting the SR-71 back in the air, but improving its performance and reliability, possibly substantially, using all the new technologies we have today. It’s even possible a clone of sorts leveraging all these advances could be built using digital engineering tools.

This is not necessarily an unprecedented concept. Just look at similar exploratory engineering programs like the X-55. But when it comes to partially reverse-engineering an airframe you have no support for, and few, if any, spare parts, America’s highly-secretive foreign materiel exploitation (FME) community could potentially lend a hand.

Operating in the shadows, they have been able to not only get totally foreign aircraft divorced from American supply chains pieced back together and flying, but they sustained them for years in total secrecy. They also did this long before the advent of rapid prototyping and digital engineering assets that we have today. Imagine what they can do now. They could be a top source for NASA to pull in to help in its far less sensitive but uniquely similar endeavor. This is just one example of many of how government and industry could come together to support and benefit from the SR-71 resurrection program.

Now, about those supply chains. During its heyday, the SR-71’s logistical tail was one of the most exotic ever created. It supported the Blackbird, as well as its progenitor, the A-12, for the better part of half a century. Reestablishing this supply chain would be a highly challenging, but rewarding exercise that could have major impacts across the aerospace industry, as well as others. So, how can we use all the capabilities we have now to jump-start the sustainment of the highest-performing air vehicle from an era of slide rules and drafting tables?

The idea of putting aircraft out of production back into production is not a foreign one to the U.S. military, either. NASA’s SR-71 program could serve as a pathfinder for better evaluating such proposals and their costs, while pushing the envelope forward on exactly how it can be done efficiently. The same can be said for simply keeping aging aircraft (or any vehicle or system for that matter) operating longer and for cheaper, by applying cutting-edge technologies and practices. NASA can create the playbook for doing so, and that playbook could end up being more valuable than the flight testing a reborn SR-71 does.

I think it’s fairly clear that we have lost something when it comes to aerospace engineering as of late. With all our advances and incredible tools even legendary Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson could have only dreamed of, it seems like we have to relearn even simple lessons from decades ago, and oftentimes that can be a very expensive, time consuming, and even deadly process. In some ways, it seems like we have gone backward, or at least stalled out in certain engineering areas. The simple things become hard and hard things have become simpler. How did they do so much protractors and pencils way back then? Getting a Blackbird flying again can help explore and possibly answer this and other questions, and help mitigate these deficiencies going forward, as well.

Even if NASA’s dormant SR-71 never ends up getting back in the air, even attempting such a challenge could be considered a success. Doing so could identify core areas across multiple disciplines that could be improved and areas of existing technology that could be better exploited for a whole array of tasks. It can also develop and refine new technologies in the process. All this sits at the core of NASA’s mission, and there is no vehicle on Earth that could drive people and organizations to give it their all for such a comeback dream as the Blackbird. It’s even possible that we could see corporations or even individuals help foot the bill for it.

And yes, all these benefits need to be weighed against cost. Surely there is a limit to how much the government can invest in such a program. Now corporations and individuals, that’s a different story.

So, yes, the main goal of this effort will likely be high-speed flight testing, but so much can be learned in the journey to get there that it must be quantified in the ‘business case’ for reviving the Blackbird.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The two candidates to become California’s next governor painted vastly different portraits of the state they want to lead during a televised CNN debate Wednesday night — though they both agreed the state faces tremendous challenges.

Democrat Xavier Becerra, leading in polls, cast the state as an economic engine and a critical bulwark against the disastrous economic policies and creeping authoritarianism of the Trump administration, but also a victim of Trump policies, including tariffs and the war in Iran, that have made life less affordable and the nation less safe.

Becerra said he would work hard to help struggling Californians — including by cutting red tape on housing and regulating AI to ensure it doesn’t destroy jobs — while his challenger, Republican Steve Hilton, would harm them further by backing President Trump’s agenda at every turn.

Hilton, endorsed by Trump, blamed the state’s most entrenched ills on years of Democratic governance, awash in unnecessary state bureaucracy and regulation that have made it wildly unaffordable, and wrongly obsessed with fighting the president instead of bringing down costs and fixing related local issues like homelessness.

Hilton said he would help struggling Californians by cutting taxes, cutting the cost of building new housing, eliminating fraud and bringing common sense back to state policy-making.

Both candidates came out of the gate on offense, and at times it got intensely personal, particularly on immigration — with Becerra accusing Hilton of welcoming white immigrants into the country while rejecting Latino immigrants, and Hilton accusing Becerra of handing migrant children over to sex and labor traffickers during his time as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

With ballots soon arriving in voters’ mailboxes and the Nov. 3 midterm election rapidly approaching, the hour-long debate — moderated by CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash in Burbank and aired live by the national news network — provided the public with its latest look at two candidates vastly different both in politics and campaign style.

Becerra, a former Congress member from Los Angeles, California attorney general and Health secretary under President Biden, surged past a slate of other Democrats to win the June primary after onetime front runner Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race amid sexual assault allegations. Hilton placed second after Republican voters and others coalesced behind his message to shake up Sacramento — earning him the right to face off against Becerra in November.

Hilton, a former British political aide, former Fox News host and Silicon Valley entrepreneur, has been crisscrossing the state looking for votes anywhere he can find them — an uphill battle given registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, and opposition to Trump is widespread in the state and growing even among Republican voters.

A poll this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times found 58% of likely voters surveyed said they support Becerra, compared with 33% who back Hilton — a slight increase to Becerra’s lead compared with an August IGS poll. California voters identified the high cost of living as their top concern, but that was followed closely by opposition to the Trump administration.

The same poll found found that 76% of Republican voters in the state approve of the president’s performance, down from 83% last year.

Becerra has taken a less visible approach to campaigning, with critics accusing him of intentionally keeping a low profile in an effort to cruise to victory in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office in two decades.

“I just want to say thank you to CNN for bringing Xavier out of hiding,” Hilton said at the beginning of Wednesday’s face-off. “He’s barely been seen in public since the primary four months ago; it’s very important we have this debate.”

During the debate, both candidates seemed prepared to focus on the lack of affordability — namely by blaming the other’s political party for it. But they also discussed artificial intelligence and data centers, immigration policy and, of course, Trump.

Tackling gas prices, high cost of living

California has some of the highest housing and energy costs in the nation, and affordability tops the list of concerns for likely voters. It also was the first issue the candidates debated.

Hilton has made the cost of living a central theme of his campaign, with a plan he calls “Califordable” to cut gas prices and end income taxes on earnings up to $150,000. He blamed California’s high costs on Democrats, who have controlled the Legislature and statewide offices for more than 15 years. Hilton says he can lower costs by slashing onerous state regulations on businesses.

Hilton said the “quickest way to get more money in people’s pockets is for the government to take less out” and to reduce regulations to allow more housing to be built — including in “10 new cities” he said he would help build in the state.

Becerra has blamed higher prices on Trump’s tariffs and the war against Iran. In response to attacks from the U.S. and Israel, Iran has for months choked off a major oil trade route, sending global gas prices soaring — to a national average of $4.48 per gallon this month.

Becerra said Hilton’s plan to end income taxes would amount to a massive tax cut for “billionaires and millionaires” that would take money from schools, healthcare and other critical services. “The math doesn’t add up to what he’s talking about. He’s going to have to take it out of somewhere. It will come out of our schools,” Becerra said.

Becerra said he would bring down costs for people by cutting red tape, including on housing, and fighting the Trump administration — which he said is the real driver of cost increases. He also said he has helped create millions of jobs during his career.

Agree but disagree on AI and data centers

Hilton and Becerra both support regulations for data centers and artificial intelligence companies, a sign of growing bipartisan pushback seen across the country.

Hilton said he wants California to take a leading role in regulating AI, given much of the industry is located in the state, and expressed concern about losing AI jobs to other states such as Texas and Arizona. Hilton questioned whether Becerra would have the political courage to rein in the industry, saying his campaign has received funding from it.

When Bash asked Hilton if those companies should be able to “self-police,” as Trump has suggested, Hilton said, “We’ll have to see.” He also said he appreciates the effort by Trump to get assurances from AI companies on safety during a recent summit, and he would work to make sure that those promises are upheld.

Becerra derided Trump’s deal as a meaningless “pinky promise” that does not guarantee a safe path forward. He said he would lead efforts to reach real and meaningful regulations but also work directly with local communities on what they want.

“If someone wants to come in and build a data center that creates more jobs in the community, adds more energy to our grid, and it actually protects and adds more water capacity, then let’s talk,” he said. “But it has to be good for the community.”

Sharp attacks on immigration

Becerra has faced bipartisan criticism of how Health and Human Services cared for the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children during the pandemic.

Hilton has hammered Becerra on it, and at the debate accused him of sending “thousands of young children directly into the clutches of child sex and labor traffickers.”

Becerra was attacked by Democratic rivals in the gubernatorial primary in the aftermath of a Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the New York Times, including an article that said thousands of migrant children who entered the United States between 2021 and 2023 worked in slaughterhouses, factories and other dangerous jobs that violated child labor laws. The investigation also alleged that tens of thousands of the children Becerra’s agency released couldn’t be found because he relaxed screening of relatives and sponsors.

Becerra repeatedly has said that despite a lack of congressional funding for licensed-care facilities dismantled by the Trump administration, his staff worked hard to vet the people who the children would be placed with.

At the debate, he called Hilton’s claims “Trump talking points.” He also said more needs to be done to ensure children aren’t separated from their immigrant parents.

Becerra also has slammed the Trump administration for its mass deportation program and immigration crackdown, which has sent immigration enforcement agents into cities across the country, including Los Angeles.

Hilton said he would work to “lower the temperature” in the immigration debate and “prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals,” which he said is not occurring in California because Democrats are playing “politics” with the Trump administration.

Becerra, the son of immigrants, said California welcomed Hilton as an immigrant, and Hilton “welcomed ICE mercenaries” into California in return. He also accused Hilton of welcoming immigrants that look like Hilton, who is white, while working to remove immigrants who look like Becerra, who is Latino.

“I have fought all my life to make life better for immigrants, to represent them well, to defend them, to let them grow and build like my parents. But here’s the problem I have with your policies: You seem to welcome immigrants who look like you, but deport immigrants who look like me,” Becerra said.

Hilton called that “disgraceful.”

Trump, Trump and more Trump

Hilton repeatedly has praised Trump and his policies and consolidated support among California Republicans after Trump endorsed him before the June primary. But Trump’s endorsement could be an albatross in the Nov. 3 election, given his low approval ratings — particularly in California.

Becerra repeatedly hammered Hilton as a Trump acolyte, so much so that Hilton said that it was Becerra’s only attack line, and that Becerra “takes no responsibility” for Democratic policies that have harmed California for years.

“All you ever say is Trump, Trump, Trump, and that’s nothing but an insult to every Californian who is desperate for something to change in this state, and all you’re offering is more of the same,” Hilton said.

Becerra countered that Hilton embraced Trump during the primary.

“Your words, Trump, Trump, Trump. Because he is your supporter,” Becerra said. “You chased his endorsement.”

Where they stand on billionaire’s tax, schools and other quick hits

• Proposition 40, the billionaires tax: Both Becerra and Hilton oppose the controversial wealth tax proposal on the ballot that would enact a one-time 5% levy on billionaires’ assets to largely replace $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts to California.
• Proposition 39, voter ID: Hilton expressed support for the ballot measure, which would require voters to present ID at the polls or write a special pin on their mail-in ballot. Becerra, who opposes the measure, claimed the initiative is part of an effort by Trump and his supporters to interfere in elections.
• Improving schools: Fewer than half of third-grade students read at grade level. Hilton said it’s a “catastrophe” that exemplifies Democratic failure in the state. Becerra conceded that the school system is not “well coordinated” but supports transitional kindergarten, a new pre-K grade created by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld President Trump’s expanded use of government data to spot non-citizens who are registered to vote.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked use of this data on the grounds it was error-prone, particularly for naturalized citizens.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The decision will aid states that seek to scrub their voter rolls and remove those who are not citizens.

Several Republican-led states including Texas and Florida supported the administration’s appeal.

The use of the new database “allowed Texas to more efficiently, promptly, and economically ensure the accuracy of its voter rolls,” the state said. It was “able to run its entire list of 18 million voters” through the expanded system of checks “in bulk and for no cost.”

It’s not clear the decision will have much impact in California and other Democratic-led states. It is likely to have a limited impact in the month ahead because the law forbids states from purging their voter rolls in the 90 days prior to an election.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, said the law supported use of the data.

“The federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters,” the court said. “The order below prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”

The administration said the Department of Homeland Security can respond to more than 1 million requests per day to check if a person appears to be a citizen or not based on Social Security records and other data files.

If not, state or county election officials may require these suspect voters to furnish proof of their citizenship.

However, states and local election boards are not required to conduct these searches. The administration also said its data reports are not final proof of citizenship.

Upholding these data searches “would not require states, candidates, parties, or voters to do anything,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. “It would simply make available to states additional information. … States that wish to use that information in the course of ensuring that only eligible citizens cast ballots this November should be free to do so.”

In dissent, Jackson said the court’s order creates the “risk that states might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting.”

The new system of voter checks is based on the 40-year-old Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, that was created by Congress. Then, the goal was to check if applicants were entitled to receive federal benefits.

Last year, Trump issued an executive order directing Homeland Security to expand the reach of SAVE to provide states “access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered to vote.”

It is a federal crime for non-citizens to register and vote.

Trump has long maintained that non-citizens are voting, but he has had little evidence to support that claim.

Voting rights advocates sued, contending the new “mass verification” system was not authorized by Congress and relied on data that is protected as private under the law.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, agreed and blocked use of the expanded searches. The administration has “trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” she said.

On Sept. 4, the U.S. court of appeals by a 2-1 vote refused to overturn her ruling, prompting the administration’s fast-track appeal.

The voting rights advocates, led by the League of Women Voters, had urged the court to stand aside.

“The government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights,” they said.

The data searches are flawed, they argued, because they “only reflect a person’s citizenship status when they applied for a Social Security number. That status does not automatically update if the person later naturalizes.”

Texas admitted that the mass checks yield “some inaccurate information.” It said 2,724 people were cited as “potential non-citizens” among its 18 million registered voters.

In response, county officials had to check further to confirm the citizenship of these voters, the state said.

Last week, the Supreme Court dealt Trump a defeat when it blocked use of his proposed postal rules that could have prevented millions of voters from casting ballots by mail.

In a brief order, the court said Trump’s claims of power over states and their voting were “unlikely to succeed.”

But in the case of the expanded data files, the court said the law appears to favor the administration.

Hacker group ShinyHunters claims to have detailed data on thousands of FBI employees.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation says it is investigating a breach of its jobs website by a hacking group that claims to have obtained sensitive data on thousands of employees.

“The FBI is aware of a cybercriminal enterprise group claiming a compromise of the fbijobs.gov portal and alleged impact to FBI employee personally identifiable information,” the agency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“While the point of breach is still undetermined — whether a third -party or the FBI’s enterprise — we are actively and aggressively investigating this matter and working closely with those third-party providers that support fbijobs.gov to mitigate any and all risk.”

Several news outlets, including Reuters news agency, reported they had seen parts of the data, claimed to be part of a larger trove between two and three terabytes by ShinyHunters, a hacking group claiming responsibility for the breach. According to Reuters, the data includes granular detail about scores of bureau officials’s job assignments, including sensitive work against Chinese spies, Russian intelligence, drug cartels and more.

ShinyHunters said on Tuesday that it had breached the FBI and stolen data on a huge number of current and former FBI employees. ⁠⁠It said it is holding the data hostage until the bureau rescinds an unflattering statement about the group issued in May. On Wednesday, the group said it was trying to keep the ⁠⁠personnel information from circulating widely in the meantime.

An FBI statement in May characterised ShinyHunters as “threat actors” who often harass or threaten victims, using “their real or exaggerated claims of access to sensitive or personal information to prompt payment from victims”.

The group “may falsely claim to have sensitive or compromising information, including embarrassing photographs or videos of victims, which frequently do not exist,” the FBI said.

The FBI has been a common hacking target.

In March, the FBI disclosed that it was investigating “suspicious activities” on an internal system that contains sensitive information related to surveillance operations and investigations. Also that month, a pro-Iranian hacking group claimed to have hacked an account of FBI Director Kash Patel and posted online what appear to be years-old photographs of him, along with a work resume and other personal documents dating back more than a decade.

The jobs portal was still offline Wednesday afternoon.

SACRAMENTO — California’s growing data center industry will have more oversight after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed seven bills to regulate the industry’s electricity costs and track water consumption.

The new laws come amid growing public concerns about environmental and economic impacts of the massive facilities, and are aimed at protecting consumers from growing electricity costs and tracking the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.

Newsom on Monday criticized President Trump for dismissing calls to curtail or regulate the facilities and heralding them as “money machines,” even as states and communities across the nation take action to ban or regulate the centers.

“While the Trump administration moves toward deregulation, communities are left to deal with the consequences — higher electricity demand, grid constraints, water use, and pollution,” Newsom said in a written statement Monday. “With these laws, we are ensuring that Californians remain in the driver’s seat — and that those profiting from data centers aren’t doing so at our expense.”

Senate Bill 886 by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) and Assembly Bill 2383 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) establish special rules for data centers’ electrical use. The law orders California Public Utilities Commission to create special requirements and rates for data centers’ use of electricity, including the costs for new power and for infrastructure upgrades.

Scores of other states have already passed similar legislation, according to utility groups.

Two bills by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) will require oversight of data center water consumption. One measure will require data center operators, when applying for a business license or permit, to disclose an estimate of their water use and the expected source of water. Another will bar cities and counties from approving a new or expanded data center unless the developer submits a water assessment and a water scarcity plan, and will require developers to cover the cost of any water system upgrade that is necessary.

Newsom vetoed a similar Papan bill last year that would have required new data centers to disclose their expected water use. The governor said he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” on “this critically important digital infrastructure” without understanding the full impact on the businesses.

But over the past year, a wave of data center pushback has swept the nation, including California, where dozens of cities and counties have proposed or adopted moratoriums on the facilities. While California lawmakers have hesitated to pursue outright moratoriums and bans that the public is calling for, the political tide has nevertheless turned against the facilities.

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding because of the rise of artificial intelligence, or AI. The centers help power everything from streaming services to videoconferencing calls.

Data centers in California are typically smaller than the mammoth, 500+-megawatt AI facilities making headlines in other parts of the country. Electricity costs and state regulations on gas-powered generators limit the vast majority of them to under 100 megawatts.

But as proposals increase in number, opposition has been fierce and growing. A Public Policy Institute of California poll from July showed that 73% of residents oppose the construction of data centers in their communities.

An unprecedented surge in border crossings over the last decade reshaped America: Millions of people from more than 150 countries arrived, bringing the U.S. immigrant population to its highest levels.

Now, data obtained exclusively by the Associated Press paint a picture of who these migrants are, where they went and what happened after the border.

Some went to cities that have long been magnets for immigrants — New York, Miami — but increasingly, others found their way to smaller cities with less developed immigrant footholds. Blocks, neighborhoods and entire cities were remade in places like Elkhart, Ind., Knoxville, Tenn.,and Dodge City, Kan.

And while the vast majority of migrants traditionally were from Mexico, this surge included people from an astonishing number and diversity of countries: India, Ecuador, Ghana.

Via a Freedom of Information Act request, AP obtained federal records on the self-reported destinations of 4.5 million migrants released in the United States after crossing the Mexican border — both legally and illegally — between October 2018 and July 2025.

Migrants must provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection with a street address. AP obtained their destination ZIP codes, citizenship by country, ages, genders and the dates and border regions where they encountered authorities.

Some probably never arrived at the addresses they gave. Authorities lacked resources to check, though migrants must report truthfully to pursue their cases in court and get work permits. Some have moved elsewhere in the United States or left the country, voluntarily or involuntarily. But many have stayed put.

Data on their initial destinations after the southern border provides both a sweeping and an unusually granular look at how the immigration surge — one that peaked during President Biden’s administration and was a major reason voters returned his predecessor, Donald Trump, to the White House — is playing out today.

Here are some key takeaways from the data.

Cities drew migrants from several continents

The Border Patrol encountered migrants from 174 countries in one year alone, a sharp departure from earlier periods when they were nearly all Mexican and Central American. The growth of social media and new migration routes were key in bringing people from around the world. Cincinnati, for example, experienced a large number of arrivals from West Africa, Uzbekistan and India.

Some cities — ones that for generations have had robust international communities — were further diversified by the range of countries from which people arrived.

New York City’s Queens borough registered at least 25 nationalities with significant arrivals, including five countries that each sent more than 7,000 people: Ecuador, China, Colombia, Venezuela and India.

Philadelphia had 11 nationalities with at least 1,000 new arrivals, led by Brazil, Haiti and the Dominican Republic but also including Russia and Venezuela. The city’s metro area also received more than 1,000 migrants from Georgia.

Florida remained No. 1, but many people looked elsewhere

While Florida was the most popular state, Latin American immigrants increasingly looked elsewhere for more promising job prospects and a better quality of life. Many turned to places with small but established communities of immigrants from their homelands.

For Cubans, nine of the top 10 destination ZIP codes were in Florida, but people of the Caribbean nation also flocked to Louisville, Ky., Grand Island, Neb., and Odessa, Texas. Colombians went to the Denver suburb of Aurora. Paterson, N.J., was the top pick among Peruvians. Some Venezuelans headed to the growing suburbs south of Salt Lake City; others to pockets of Atlanta, Chicago and Denver.

More women and children came than men

Nearly 6 of every 10 migrants released at the border were women and children, a dramatic shift from a few years earlier when migrants were predominantly men.

The change is visible in many places and across nationalities, but some stand out. Tulsa, Okla., attracted Mexican women and children. Ecuadorian women and children went to Spring Valley, N.Y. Guatemalan women were drawn to Chattanooga, Tenn.

Those who came from China headed to L.A. and New York

Chinese migrants, who trekked by hundreds nightly in California’s mountainous border with Mexico, largely gravitated to two places: New York City, especially the Queens and Brooklyn boroughs, and a cluster of neighborhoods in the Los Angeles area.

Trump’s deportation machine hit some migrant magnets and overlooked others

Immigration arrests have hit some areas that ranked among the most popular destinations for migrants in recent years, including Miami and New York. Others that experienced a large migrant influx have gotten less attention from authorities, including Silicon Valley, Madison, Wis, and Stamford, Conn.

Jarrett, Kessler, Lodhi and Spagat write for the Associated Press.

DAKAR: Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are using anonymised mobile-phone ​data to map population movements and identify areas where the virus could spread next, according to the World Health Organization and researchers working with it. 

The approach, which has not been used before in an Ebola response, comes as authorities struggle to contain what the WHO has described as the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak on record. Cases have been confirmed in six provinces, with more than 6,250 people infected and 3,039 killed since the outbreak was declared on May 15, according to the latest government data. 

The outbreak, Congo’s 17th, is caused by the Bundibugyo species of Ebola, for which there are no approved vaccines or treatments. 

As the virus spreads, health officials are looking for ways to anticipate where cases could emerge next and direct limited surveillance and response resources. 

“Population movements have always been a factor in outbreaks, but they are particularly important in the ‌current epidemic,” said Olivier ‌Le Polain, head of epidemiology and analytics for response at the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. 

Traditional ​risk ‌assessments focus ⁠on outbreak ​hotspots ⁠and assume the virus is most likely to spread to surrounding areas.Analizing mobility data allows responders to identify risks in places that may be geographically distant but closely connectedthrough travel patterns. 

“It gives us a more nuanced understanding of risk,” Le Polainsaid, citing the example of Ituri province, in the northeast, where the virus is believed to have started circulating. 

“There are very significant population movements in Ituri linked to mining activities and trade. Understanding those movements is crucial to understanding how the outbreak spreads.” 

The analysis is produced by Swedish non-profit Flowminder, using anonymised records generated when mobile phone users connect to telecommunications networks. As people move around the country, their phones connect to different antennas on the network, generating records that show where those connections took place. Researchers use ⁠those records to estimate how people travel between different areas. 

The data is provided free of charge by ‌Vodacom, Congo’s largest operator. Vodacom did not respond to a request for comment. 

Flowminder says it ‌receives aggregated and anonymised records and does not have access to information identifying individual subscribers. 

“We seek ​to provide estimates of how people move, which in turn is ‌a predictor of how infectious people move,” Flowminderfounder Linus Bengtsson said. 

Flowminder’s first analysis, published in early June, focused on the three ‌areas where the outbreak is believed to have started: Bunia, Mongbwalu and Rwampara. Researchers tracked where people who had spent time in those areas between April 3 and April 23 later traveled. 

The largest flows were to nearby areas in Ituri province and North Kivu province. By the end of June, all 10 of the destinations receiving the largest flows of travelers from the original outbreak areas had reported confirmed Ebola cases. 

SINGAPORE: Commodity vessel ‌transits through the Strait of Hormuz fell to a single digit per day at the weekend, preliminary shiptracking data showed on Monday, well below a 10-day average of 14.

Over the weekend, four vessels exited the Gulf through the strait, including a Handysize vessel sailing in ballast, a Handy vessel carrying LPG, a Supramax carrying fertilizer and a Suezmax laden with crude or condensate.

Ten vessels entered the Gulf, ‌including a ‌mini-bulker carrying minor bulk commodities, a Handymax ‌carrying grain, a Panamax carrying metals and a Supramax carrying dry bulk cargo, the data showed.

The figures exclude any vessels that might have crossed the strait with their Automatic Identification System transponders turned off to avoid detection.

A vessel was struck by an unknown projectile while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the United ‌Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said ‌early on Sunday.

It said the crew’s status, damage assessment ‌and environmental impact were unknown.

Meanwhile, the vital East-West ‌oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia, which has helped relieve the logjam in the Strait of Hormuz, was temporarily shut down by a drone attack coming from Iraq, ‌Saudi officials said.

Before the Iran war started on February 28, the strait typically handled about 125 large, commercial vessels per day, including tankers, gas carriers, bulkers and container vessels, accounting for some 20% of the world’s daily crude oil and liquefied natural gas supply.

A US blockade of Iran-related shipping has halted Iranian crude oil exports since it was reimposed in mid-July. In the Bab el-Mandeb strait, 24 and 27 commodity vessels travelled through respectively on Saturday and Sunday, tracking data showed, compared with an average of around 27 ships over the last 10 days.

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.

“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.

Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade US Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The US Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the US House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or man-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the US census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the US were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the US identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Published on
09/09/2026 – 12:16 GMT+2

Helsinki has landed the biggest cheque Google has written anywhere in Europe

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The company announced on Wednesday that a €13 billion investment will fund data centres and supporting infrastructure across four municipalities, along with clean energy projects and funds dedicated to local biodiversity, education, research and workforce development.

The facilities in Hamina, Kajaani, Muhos and Vaala will power a range of Google services, among them its Gemini chatbot. The company described the decision as “a testament to Finland’s leadership in responsibly building AI infrastructure.”

Construction is expected across 2027 and 2028, and the firm estimates the investment will add €3.6 billion a year to Finland’s GDP while supporting more than 37,000 jobs, roughly 16,000 of them in construction.

Once the building stops, Google projects the sites will sustain around 7,000 jobs annually, spanning technical and facility roles, equipment suppliers, as well as the shops, restaurants and services used by those workers and their families.

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo welcomed the announcement in Google’s statement.

“Google’s decision is a clear testament to our strengths. The value of the data economy extends far beyond direct investment into spurring innovation, research and development,” Orpo said, adding that closer collaboration would “deliver lasting benefits for both parties.”

Why Finland

The appeal to invest in Finland is rooted in its cold climate.

Data centres generate enormous heat and consume vast quantities of electricity, and Finland offers a cold climate that reduces cooling costs alongside relatively cheap and stable power from nuclear plants, wind and hydro.

That combination has produced a boom, with dozens of data centres already under construction across the country.

Google’s own presence dates back to 2009, when it bought a disused paper mill in the coastal city of Hamina and converted it, expanding steadily since.

For Orpo’s right-wing government, attracting this kind of investment has also been a priority, especially since Finnish elections will take place in April of next year.

Finland is contending with record unemployment and weak growth, and the data economy has become one of the few sectors offering the prospect of substantial investment and job creation.

Additional sources • AFP

HANFORD, Calif. — Darian Orduno bounced her baby boy on her chest, looking down at his thick black hair and bright eyes. What might pollution from a data center do, she wondered, to his growing lungs?

That question had brought Orduno, 25, to a community meeting opposing a possible data center here, and her fears, she said, likely would influence her vote in the midterm election too.

“I just had him, and now it’s concerning if he’s going to be able to grow up here,” Orduno said, or “if I’m going to have to relocate.”

As about 100 residents filed into a church for the meeting in late August, under a Central Valley sky hazy with air pollution, many shared the same worries — that a facility pitched for the local fairgrounds could further worsen the area’s air quality and strain its water supply.

Barbara Castle listens to speakers during a town hall meeting on a possible small-scale data center in Hanford.

Nationwide, such concerns are fueling a backlash to data centers from both the left and the right as tech companies flood the country with thousands of proposals for the facilities in nearly every state from California to Maine.

Data centers have become an unusually bipartisan flash point in the midterm elections, as candidates race to delineate policy platforms and respond to public opinion. The issue stands to influence swing voters and motivate turnout at the polls.

Here in the 22nd District, home to the state’s most competitive congressional race, how significantly the issue will affect voters’ decisions remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Anxiety about data centers is mounting.

“It’s a national concern, it’s now a state concern, and now it’s bled into the local concern,” Hanford Mayor Mark Kairis said. “It’s a very emotionally charged issue right now.”

Residents in Hanford who oppose data centers say they are worried about the region’s air and water quality, concerns echoed by rural communities across the country.

Demand for data centers, which house the computer systems powering artificial intelligence and the internet, has surged as AI use has ballooned. As of April, more than 1,500 new data centers were in development across the United States, according to a Pew Research Center analysis, largely in rural areas.

The centers require intense cooling, which often demands high water and power use and creates the potential to affect the environment and to pass on utility costs to consumers. But they power technology that is becoming increasingly integrated into American business. They also create jobs, though with limitations.

Democrats see the data center uproar as fitting into their affordability messaging, and candidates generally agree data centers should be regulated, though their positions vary on how aggressively. For Republicans, whose party has backed AI innovation, responding to worsening public opinion has been trickier — particularly given President Trump’s championing of AI and data centers.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday acknowledged negative polling on data centers but framed the issue as a question of American industrial dominance, saying the country can’t shy away from development. Earlier in the week, Trump asserted that the only reason communities should reject data centers is if they want to be “backwards and poor.”

The public may see data centers as a physical manifestation of AI advancement in general, said Camille Crittenden, executive director of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society, a University of California research center. Opposing data centers offers people a way to vent their broader concerns about the technology’s increasing dominance.

Priest Luke Martinez expresses concerns during the community meeting .

“This is a very specific focal point for a general anxiety about AI,” she said. “People see these data centers, and they’re thinking, ‘AI’s going to take my job.’”

The backlash from residents in the Central Valley to the possibility of even a small-scale data center demonstrates how acutely the issue has put many Americans on edge.

“It really is terrifying,” said Lucy Gomez, 57, of Hanford, a retired teacher. “I feel like we’re being guinea pigs when we don’t want to be.”

Increasing influence

Community anger about the facilities has prompted close attention from California lawmakers, who passed legislation in Sacramento on Monday to regulate energy use by the data center industry and impose other requirements.

California is home to the third-most data centers of any state, though it has experienced a relatively smaller new boom because of its high electrical prices and other factors. Still, 54 new facilities were in the works for the state as of April, according to Pew.

Hanford Councilwoman Kimber Regan speaks with Mayor Mark Kairis during the meeting. Hanford’s zoning ordinances do not allow data centers, but the city does not have jurisdiction over the county fairgrounds site where Global Stack is evaluating its proposal.

In Georgia and Pennsylvania, New York and Texas, Nevada and Virginia, the issue has become hot-button in elections at all levels. Ads about data centers run on the airwaves in states with key congressional races. Gubernatorial candidates jockey over it; both New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, put temporary moratoriums on new data centers.

A memo from the Republican senatorial campaign arm underscored how critical the question was becoming last month, when it warned AI companies that data centers could be the deciding issue in the close race between Ohio GOP Sen. Jon Husted and former Sen. Sherrod Brown, his Democratic challenger.

Data centers “are the anchor hanging around Husted’s neck,” said the memo, which was first obtained by Axios. “If he loses and data centers get the blame, politicians across the country will take notice — and they will not go near the next one.”

Sixty-one percent of Americans would oppose a data center being built where they live, a late August poll by the Economist and YouGov found.

Though Democrats and independents were more likely to oppose the centers, 47% of Republicans also said they would oppose it, and 52% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said they believed construction of a new data center would increase their electrical bills.

Data centers encapsulate existing concerns among red and blue voters across the nation and in California about their quality of life and the influence of major tech companies, said Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan.

“California has a lot of communities that have been struggling and trying to find a way forward, and the data center debate captures those voters’ frustrations,” McCuan said.

Political winds

The historic Bastille, which served as Kings County’s jail and sheriff’s office from 1897 until 1964, stands tall next to the courthouse in Hanford’s Civic Center Park.

The idea for a center on the Kings County fairgrounds is part of a broader pitch by developer Global Stack USA to boost the state’s emergency infrastructure by installing small-scale data centers, helipads and parking garages at fairgrounds around the state.

Global Stack Chief Executive Dan Kang said the goal was strengthening the state’s emergency response capabilities while helping fairgrounds financially. The company’s early materials envisioned operating 70 sites by 2030.

The company has not made any formal proposals, but in Kings and Tulare counties, the issue caught attention after fair officials agreed to allow Global Stack to evaluate their sites. The idea also prompted some residents to voice opposition in Ventura County last month.

The facilities would include what’s known as an edge computing data center, which typically is much smaller than traditional data centers and which Global Stack says would require lower utility use and no municipal water connection.

Concerns about water and energy use by data centers are legitimate, said Shaolei Ren, a UC Riverside engineering professor who studies AI. Centers like the one proposed by Global Stack do not guzzle water the way larger ones do, but they still can use extra power or generate air and noise pollution, Ren said.

In Kings County, the project potentially could benefit the fairgrounds as a long-term revenue source, said Dena Rizzardo, chief executive of the fair board, a state entity that would have final say over any proposal. Because fairgrounds are state property, local and county officials don’t have jurisdiction.

Kang said he is committed to working with local communities to ensure “any path forward reflects local needs and California’s broader resilience priorities.”

In the district’s congressional race, which could help decide control of the House in November, Democratic nominee Randy Villegas said he has been getting questions about data centers from voters. Last month, he released a set of policy points and called for a data center moratorium of at least a year to give Congress time to pass regulations.

Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas urged meeting attendees to lobby federal lawmakers to pass legislation regulating data centers.

“The advancement of technology … should not be an excuse to throw our communities under the bus,” Villegas said at the Hanford meeting, where he addressed the friendly crowd without identifying himself as a congressional candidate. A College of the Sequoias professor, he is attempting to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao.

Valadao, in a statement to The Times, said data center construction requires a “responsible approach” that includes local input and ratepayer protections.

“Data centers play an important role in our economy and national security, but Central Valley families are already facing high electric bills and concerns about our water supply,” Valadao said. He did not answer questions about the proposal in Hanford.

Several attendees at the Hanford meeting, who ranged from Gen Z to elderly, said the issue would affect their midterm votes, though most said they already were leaning to the left.

Gomez, the retired teacher, was not happy with either party but planned to vote for Democrats because she viewed them as taking more action to protect public health than Republicans.

Ember Gomez listens to speakers while her father, Filiberto, looks on during the meeting. Filiberto Gomez said he was concerned a data center would affect children’s health.

Courtney Hawkins, 40, said the data center issue “absolutely” would carry weight in his votes.

“I believe that AI is good for propelling technology in general,” Hawkins said, “but I don’t believe we should be pursuing it without regulations and at the cost of the environment.”