An ObamaCare deadline has collided with a fight over government funding, as Democrats are signaling they want Republicans to extend the law’s expiring premium subsidies before they support any bill to keep the government open.  

Without action, enhanced tax credits passed during the COVID-19 pandemic to help people afford coverage will expire at the end of the year. Congress has extended the subsidies twice, but now Republicans control the entire government and many are content to let the subsidies expire.  

Yet, some in the GOP are showing openness to some type of extension by year’s end. But government funding expires on Sept. 30, and Democratic leaders want to leverage the earlier deadline to extract concessions on health care and other issues.  

“On this issue, we’re totally united. The Republicans have to come to meet with us in a true bipartisan negotiation to satisfy the American people’s needs on health care or they won’t get our votes, plain and simple,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) told reporters Thursday. 

Here’s what to know about the fight so far. 

Why is this happening now? 

If Congress is going to pass any kind of subsidy extension, they don’t technically have to act until the end of the year. Lawmakers are notorious for waiting until the last possible minute to extend an expiring program.  

But insurers are setting their rates now, and open enrollment for people with plans on the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) exchanges begins Nov. 1. Some people are already receiving notices of substantial rate hikes. If Congress waits until the end of the year, most Healthcare.gov customers will have already selected plans. 

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, about 4 million people will drop out of ACA plans in the first year after the extra subsidies are discontinued. Those people are likely to be relatively young and healthy, leaving a pool of sicker, more expensive patients — leading to even higher premiums in subsequent years. 

Even if the tax credit is extended later, some consumers may never return. 

What is the benefit of the enhanced tax credits?   

In short, they make health plans affordable for more Americans. 

Tax credits to help people on ObamaCare plans afford their premiums have been available since the law passed, but they were capped at enrollees making four times the federal poverty level — $103,280 for a family of three in 2024. 

During the pandemic, Democrats increased the amount of the credit and expanded eligibility to more middle-income people. 

Eligible applicants can use the credit to lower insurance premium costs upfront or claim the tax break when filing their return.   

As a result, enrollment in ObamaCare health plans doubled to more than 24 million, helping to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. 

What happens if the subsidies expire? 

Almost everyone who is enrolled in a plan on the ACA exchange is receiving a subsidy.  

If they expire, premiums are likely to spike. According to health research group KFF, premiums are expected to increase by more than 75 percent on average, with people in some states seeing their payments more than double.  

More than 24 million Americans are enrolled in the insurance marketplace this year, and about 90 percent — more than 22 million people — are receiving enhanced subsidies.  

Since 2020, enrollment in the ACA marketplace has grown faster in the states won by President Trump in 2024 — primarily rural, Southern states that haven’t expanded Medicaid.   

According to a recent KFF survey, 45 percent of Americans who buy their own health insurance through the ACA exchanges identify as Republican or lean Republican. Three in 10 said they identify as “Make America Great Again” supporters.

What are the GOP politics? 

Republicans opposed ObamaCare in 2010, and were also united against the two Biden-era laws that created, and then extended, the enhanced tax credits for patients during the pandemic. 

But the tax credits have become an integral part of the law, and explaining to millions of Americans — and GOP voters —  why their health insurance premiums are suddenly too expensive for them to afford could be politically unpopular. 

GOP leaders are feeling some pressure. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said he is open to discussing legislation to extend the subsidies, but he said Democrats need to present them with a plan, and not as part of a government funding deal. 

The CBO said permanently extending the subsidies would cost $358 billion over the next 10 years. Many Republicans have balked at the cost. They argue the credits hide the true cost of the health law and subsidize Americans who don’t need the help. They also argue the subsidies have been a driver of fraudulent enrollment by unscrupulous brokers seeking high commissions.  

Republicans declined to include a subsidy extension as part of their tax and spending cut legislation over the summer. The absence was notable given the law’s deep cuts to Medicaid and other sweeping changes it makes to the health care system, and GOP leaders are likely looking to insulate their party against Democrats’ health care attacks. 

Eleven GOP lawmakers have endorsed legislation extending the benefits for one year, punting the issue beyond the midterm elections. Most of them are vulnerable front-liners facing tough reelection contests. 

(NEXSTAR) — It’s mid-September, which can only mean one thing for holders of Apple technology: a massive iOS update is afoot.

During its highly anticipated Apple event last week, the company confirmed the date in which the next update, iOS 26, would be released.

Apple tends to follow the same release schedule every year. In June, it teases its upcoming devices and software updates, and in September, it makes both available. First, though, it hosts an Apple event outlining all the specs (that’s what happened on Tuesday) and then the new tech becomes available the following week.

If you aren’t rushing out to get the new iPhone Air, the most notable update you’ll see is iOS 26.

Those who participate in Apple’s Developer Program and Beta Software Program have already gotten to experience some of the soon-to-be-available features. In addition to Liquid Glass, Apple says those features include options to set the snooze duration on your alarm, Call Screening to respond to unwanted calls, and Apple Intelligence capabilities with the Reminders app.

Which iPhones, Apple devices can get iOS 26?

Below is the list of iPhones, iPads, Watches, and Mac devices that will be able to get iOS 26:

Only the latest iPhones — iPhones 15 and newer — as well as iPad mini (A17 Pro), and iPad and Mac models with M1, have access to Apple Intelligence.

Which device do I have?

To confirm which iPhone you have, navigate to the Settings app, then go to General, and About. 

On a Mac, you can open the About This Mac tool from the Apple menu. Apple offers steps on identifying iPads using the model number.

Why can’t I download iOS 26?

There may be a number of reasons. If your device is not listed above, it’s likely too old for the features of iOS 26. Apple does, eventually, make its devices “technologically obsolete.”

If your device is listed above, but you’re still having trouble downloading iOS 26, make sure you’re connected to the internet. Updates typically require your device to be connected to Wi-Fi. You may also need to connect your device to a charger or clean up some storage space.

When will iOS 26 become available?

Previous iOS updates have become available around 10 a.m. PT, or 1 p.m. ET, according to MacRumors. It’s likely iOS 26 will be released around the same time.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Sunday criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments in the wake of the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk.

Omar, who said she was “mortified” at Kirk’s murder in an interview with Zeteo’s Mehdi Hasan on Thursday, called conservatives who blamed the left for the shooting “full of s—.”

“She clearly has no idea what she’s talking about,” Johnson told Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.” “She has not followed Charlie. She’s playing into this characterization of him that the left has been advancing.”

Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during an event on the campus of Utah Valley University on Wednesday. The alleged gunman, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody by the FBI on Thursday evening. 

The slaying was condemned by lawmakers across the political spectrum, with many noting the recent wave of political violence in the United States. Omar herself spoke of the “trauma” that assassinations of political figures can have on loved ones. 

“It was really mortifying to hear the news, to see the video,” the Minnesota congresswoman told Zeteo. “All I could think about was his wife, his children — that image is going to live forever.”

Omar, however, pushed back on Republican lawmakers who have pointed fingers at left-wing rhetoric in assigning blame for the shooting. The 42-year-old also expressed concerns about her security.

“And, you know, you have people like Trump, who has incited violence against people like me,” Omar said, noting the president’s 2019 comments that she should leave the United States and return to her home country of Somalia. “And so, you know, these people are full of s‑‑‑, and it’s important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness.”

President Trump blamed the “radical left” for Kirk’s murder in an Oval Office address on Thursday. The president also said the group was standing in the way of the country being unified in an interview with NBC News on Saturday.

According to voter records in Utah, Robinson was not affiliated with a political party. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said at a press conference on Friday that the alleged shooter became “more political” ahead of the shooting of Kirk. Cox also referenced a recent family dinner where Robinson and a family member spoke of their dislike of the conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder.

Johnson told Fox News that security for House members “is a serious matter” while denouncing Omar’s comments. 

“We got to turn the rhetoric down. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, what you just saw in that video right there,” Johnson said of Omar. “And I hope all members of Congress will join us.”

President Trump’s bold agenda to rebalance global trade through tariffs and slash government spending demands swift action to offset short-term economic disruptions.

The president secured trillions in promised investment. But when will those projects ever break ground? Federal permitting, a bureaucratic morass, delays critical infrastructure and energy projects, stifling growth.

The unseen costs of these delays — lost jobs, forgone wages and idle capital that could otherwise fuel innovation and upward mobility — are the tangible consequences. What is not built today diminishes prosperity tomorrow.

President Trump’s recent executive orders on deregulation and investment acceleration prioritize growth, yet permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act remains a bottleneck. A 2020 Council on Environmental Quality study found that reviews under the law average 4.5 years, costing billions in lost opportunities.

To get President Trump’s projects started sooner, he should consider utilizing streamlined regulatory tools to reform permitting through voluntary pilot programs using regulatory technology (RegTech) and a permit-by-rule structure backed by surety bonds. These tools would allow the government to frontload the analysis, correct compliance errors much more quickly, and protect the taxpayer with private insurance — and best of all, it simplifies the permitting process and reduces years of government bureaucracy.

This return to common law principles, where the government focuses on enforcing clear standards rather than granting individual permissions, breathes life into property rights, empowering citizens to act freely within defined limits. That’s the decentralized common law governance that historically unleashed American economic dynamism. It would make America’s economy great again, indeed.

However, changing regulations takes time. Notice and comment rulemaking is a quagmire that allows loud factions to defer electoral reality. But there is a lawful way around this delay.

The Administrative Procedure Act allows agencies to forgo notice and comment for policy statements or procedural rules for “good cause,” providing legal flexibility for pilot programs. Based on this, a 1993 DC Circuit case ruled that voluntary pilots do not require notice and comment because they do not impose new obligations on everyone — yet they will ultimately improve the process for everyone (which eventually requires notice and comment or congressional action).

This precedent has stood for over 30 years. The EPA’s Project XL, launched in 1995, proves the legality and efficacy of voluntary pilot programs without notice and comment. Project XL tested innovative permitting approaches, such as streamlined environmental approvals, under Administrative Procedure Act exemptions for policy statements. Fifty pilots were implemented at EPA, and 20 percent of them eventually led to permanent regulatory changes through notice and comment, demonstrating that temporary, voluntary experiments can lawfully test reforms while paving the way for broader adoption.

This precedent also supports using pilot programs to test a permit-by-rule system, where permits are automatically granted unless denied based on transparent standards, a model already sometimes used by the EPA and at least 38 states. For instance, Texas’s permit-by-rule system takes most of the time out of permitting, allowing projects to get started creating jobs and securing supply chains — the kind of decentralized efficiency that built America’s economic preeminence.

A permit-by-rule system, tested through voluntary pilots, also aligns with President Trump’s deregulatory vision. Participants have the option of voluntarily opting in, testing streamlined processes without imposing new legal obligations on other participants, qualifying as Administrative Procedure Act-exempt policy statements or interpretive rules. RegTech — using sensors, blockchains and AI — enhances this approach.

A “courthouse in the cloud” can verify compliance in real time, cutting review times from years to milliseconds. And blockchain-based records can ensure environmental standards are being met, making permitting faster and more transparent and enforcement much swifter. This digital extension of property rights administration combines American economic tradition with cutting edge technology.

Surety bonds complete the framework. By requiring applicants to post bonds guaranteeing compliance, the government shifts from gatekeeping to enforcement. If standards are violated, bonds cover remediation, protecting the public without delaying approvals. Project XL provides lawful precedent for this kind of process improvement, with pilots refining systems before broader rulemaking applies the best ones across the board.

There are some that argue this accelerated process comes at the expense of environmental standards. In fact, the opposite is true. This gambit would better protect the environment and the taxpayer by creating a faster, more cost-effective way to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental analysis process requirements. By launching voluntary pilots now, President Trump can deliver economic wins before the midterms, showing voters that deregulation drives jobs and infrastructure renewal.

Project XL’s legacy proves that voluntary pilots are a lawful, effective way to test permitting reforms. By combining RegTech, permit-by-rule and surety bonds, we can unlock those trillions in promised investment. Get ready for the ribbon cuttings.

Stephen Hollingshead is a former regulator under former President George W. Bush, CEO of the regulatory technology startup ChangeInEx, and a senior fellow at America First Policy Institute, where he writes on regulatory reform and expeditionary economics.

Last month, the Trump administration and Nvidia worked out what some have called an unusual and surprising deal for the latter to export its defeatured AI chips. 

That is, President Trump reversed a decision made by his own administration to decategorize Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s chips as a national security risk in a deal that includes a 15 percent levy to the U.S. government on sales of those chips. 

Trump then followed up with a number of executive orders and an AI Action Plan. In general, U.S. and foreign AI companies, so long as they are not ideologically biased against his administration, will more or less be given a green light to build major AI infrastructure projects. 

Furthermore, AI products manufactured in the U.S. could be exported to non-allied countries, including China, albeit with export controls through U.S. Department of Commerce.

Around the same time, Trump reached a deal with Intel for an unprecedented 10 percent government stake in the company.

For the general public to understand the above calibration of market-orientation and “America First” priorities, the pillars of national security marketism must be explained.

Here, economic security is the same as national security, in which both U.S. and foreign companies are not only reigned in, but are expected to align their operations to constitute the current administration’s objectives, both in political and economic terms. 

This is called corporate statism, a distinct outcome from China’s state capitalism whereby corporate groups form the basis of society and the state.

In recent decades, China’s one-party system has effectively utilized its state capitalism to constitute itself as a superpower and remake the world into a bipolar power system. 

Yet, on the other side of the power system, the Trump administration appears to be aiming to, at least initially, claim exclusive and singular power of the presidency to usher a variation of state capitalism in the United States.

In the administration’s eyes, doing so could decouple the U.S. from China, upend the bipolar power system and lessen the economic and military rise of China.

It’s likely Trump’s national security marketism will entail a “rent system” for both U.S. and foreign companies, requiring them to pay forward when innovating and making profits. 

Trump has also threatened tariffs on American brands in order for U.S. products to be more broadly consumed at home and abroad. 

Additionally, in ushering in his version of state capitalism, his technocrat bureaucracy is devaluing previous American pillars of diversity and inclusion. In their place will be the idiom that personal, domestic and economic security are national security.

It’s no secret that in recent decades a growing segment of the American public has been discontent with the status quo. And, thus, an openness to a different political wind that could promulgate a reshaping of the American way of life.

What has not been fully understood, though, is the emergence and variation of state capitalism in the U.S.

While the term state capitalism generally connotes negative externalities and single-party systems like in China, state capitalism has been studied through the lens of variations and varieties. 

Variations of state capitalism can be observed in all nation-states, as each country’s government, based on their culture and history, designs their unique political and economic aspirations and goals.

In the field of varieties of state capitalism, a number focus on and have been predicting the downfall of existing capitalist societies, such as in China, whereas others focus on the continual forms of state capitalist countries. 

The above is to say that there is another way to understand and assess the Trump administration and its venture into state capitalism. 

Rather than predicting when the state intervention of the Trump administration and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party will fail, it could be more politically and economically astute to realize and accept that the U.S. has likely crossed the Rubicon of returning to its status quo.

In so many words, perhaps the story now is how will the Trump administration execute its state capitalism: vertically or horizontally.

Overall, the Trump administration has been accelerating the vertical aspect of the aforementioned rent system, technocrat bureaucracy and threats to tariff American brands that could significantly rock the U.S.’s healthy consumer economy and normalize today’s volatile stock market. 

However, if the Trump administration pivots to a more horizontal state capitalism, in which key stakeholders and their interests are accounted for, Trump’s state capitalism might have some real legs.

While Trump’s state capitalism is still unfolding and subject to legal and political challenges, it is fueled by a deep-rooted shift in public sentiment and domestic politics that see America losing its way and has created the ideal conditions for Trump to take a playbook straight from China. 

It is indeed uncharted territory where the status quo is being reshaped before our eyes.

Long Le is an associate teaching professor at the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) said Sunday that he believed that the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk “can be an occasion for soul searching as a country.”

“I think we all recognize that political divisions have been deepening in this country, that political violence is on the rise and with so much anger right now and fear this cycle could well escalate, but I don’t think it has to be that way,” Kiley said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I think this can be an occasion for soul searching as a country, where we ask ourselves, ‘How can we pursue a different vision of politics? How can we all play a part in forming a better American community?’” he added.

Kirk was talking at an Utah Valley University event Wednesday when he was shot and killed. Following a manhunt featuring local, state and federal law enforcement, officials identified the alleged suspect as Tyler Robinson, 22, of Utah.

“At this moment, the nation is still in shock over the barbaric murder of a man beloved by millions. The depth of this tragedy is hard to process: a life cut short at age 31, a wife left without a husband, two young children without a father,” Kiley said in a post on the social platform X Thursday.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) also said Sunday that “just believing differently than some other American is not illegal.”

“I’m a conservative Republican. I have Democratic friends that think very differently, vote very differently, but they’re still my friend on it. So, just having that ideology, just believing differently than some other American is not illegal, that’s America,” Lankford told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

“We don’t all agree as next door neighbors on different things, but it is very different to try to plan, strategize, to be able to carry out an act of violence on it,” he added.