A campanha do candidato à reeleição Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) acionou nesta quarta-feira (14) o Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) após constatar restrições na entrega de postagens aos usuários de plataformas da Meta (Facebook, Instagram e WhatsApp).
Além das restrições relacionadas às postagens, a campanha também citou que comandos para geração de imagens de inteligência artificial não permitem a criação de conteúdos sobre Lula. Contudo, a criação de imagens relacionadas ao candidato Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) está liberada.
Na petição enviada ao TSE, os advogados da campanha afirmaram que o algoritmo da Meta está “enviesado” e pratica “seletividade algorítmica” para beneficiar Flávio.
“A Meta AI, motor de inteligência artificial que integra todas as plataformas geridas pela Meta – Instagram, Whatsapp e Facebook – é, por si, enviesado e busca, a todo custo, entregar ao usuário um resultado favorável a Flávio Bolsonaro, ainda que o mesmo usuário insista em Lula”, afirmaram os advogados.
Trump
A campanha também afirmou que Meta é alinhada ao presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, e exerce “pressões” sob o eleitor brasileiro.
“Enquanto restringe, sem explicação, a entrega do conteúdo do representante e do seu campo político, em território nacional, quadro que revela, na conduta da empresa estrangeira alinhada ao governo Trump, a materialização, no interior do pleito, do vetor de pressão externa sobre o eleitorado”, afirmou a campanha.
A suposta seletividade da Meta já está judicializada no TSE desde a semana passada. Conforme representação enviada ao tribunal, o PT disse que há pelo menos 255 perfis falsos contra a campanha de Lula.
O caso é avaliado pelo ministro Marco Aurélio Belizze.
Outro lado
Em nota, a Meta informou que proibiu a recomendação ou geração de imagens de candidatos.
“Em cumprimento com as regras eleitorais do Brasil, nós proibimos temporariamente a recomendação de candidatos ou a geração de imagens deles. Tomamos medidas adicionais para que comandos usando apenas o primeiro nome dos candidatos e seu número nas urnas também não produzam imagens”.
Matéria atualizada às 19h para acrescentar posicionamento da Meta
O Sporting Clube Olhanense apresenta esta quarta-feira, 14 de outubro, a camisola oficial para a época 2026/27, através de um vídeo protagonizado por Ukra, antigo jogador do clube algarvio. A revelação aconteceu às 19h12 – referência simbólica ao ano da fundação de uma das instituições históricas do futebol português – desta quarta-feira, 14 de outubro. […]
U.S. forces destroyed an Iranian-affiliated dhow in the Gulf of Oman on October 6 after determining that the vessel was conducting surveillance and helping target American warships, U.S. Central Command...
EU finance ministers have approved a compromise that would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority’s powers while exempting some major trading venues from centralised oversight. The agreement reflects continuing resistance to transferring financial supervision from national authorities to Brussels.
European Union finance ministers have reached an agreement to expand centralised supervision of financial markets, but Germany has secured provisions allowing important parts of Deutsche Börse to remain under national oversight, substantially narrowing the European Commission’s original reform proposals.
The compromise, agreed at a meeting in Luxembourg on 9 October, would transfer responsibility for supervising selected trading venues, clearing houses and securities settlement institutions to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
However, the agreement introduces exemptions and thresholds that reduce the number of institutions automatically subject to direct European supervision.
The result is a significant political compromise between governments seeking deeper financial integration and those reluctant to surrender oversight of nationally important market operators.
Berlin secures its exemption
The most contentious element of the negotiations concerned Deutsche Börse, the German financial-market group that operates the Frankfurt stock exchange and provides trading, clearing and other financial infrastructure services.
Germany opposed arrangements that would place all major market operators under direct ESMA supervision, arguing that institutions with predominantly domestic activities should continue to be regulated nationally.
The agreed compromise refines the criteria for determining which trading venues qualify for centralised oversight.
These conditions allow certain Deutsche Börse operations to remain outside the new supervisory regime.
The exemption had already become a point of contention during negotiations among European governments.
As EU Today reported in June, Berlin had sought to protect Deutsche Börse from mandatory European supervision despite Germany’s broader support for integrating EU capital markets.
The October agreement formalises a narrower approach within the Council’s negotiating position, although the legislation remains subject to approval by the European Parliament.
Europe’s fragmented financial markets
The European Commission has repeatedly argued that fragmented national supervision weakens the EU’s ability to compete with financial markets in the United States.
Although the Union operates a single market, many financial institutions continue to face differing regulatory interpretations, procedures and supervisory relationships across member states.
These differences can increase operating costs and discourage financial businesses from expanding across borders.
The Market Integration and Supervision Package is intended to simplify those arrangements and strengthen common oversight of financial infrastructure with significant cross-border activity.
Under the Council’s position, ESMA would assume direct supervision of selected trading platforms and institutions involved in clearing and securities settlement.
Such institutions perform essential functions in financial markets, including managing transactions, transferring securities and controlling risks between counterparties.
Differences in supervisory arrangements can complicate the operation of financial services that increasingly function across national borders.
The Commission argues that greater consistency would allow European capital to move more efficiently between member states and provide businesses with improved access to investment.
Compromise reduces original ambitions
The Commission’s original approach envisaged broader centralisation of supervisory responsibilities.
The Council agreement of 9 October introduces more restrictive criteria governing the institutions that would fall under ESMA’s direct authority.
In addition to the treatment of trading venues, ministers agreed that direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers should initially concentrate on businesses with the most significant cross-border operations.
The Council also supported changes to ESMA’s governance arrangements, including the creation of a full-time executive board.
The proposed board would strengthen the authority’s ability to make supervisory decisions independently of individual national regulators, while preserving mechanisms for cooperation with those authorities.
The compromise also introduces arrangements allowing national supervisors collectively to challenge certain decisions.
These provisions reflect concerns about concentrating regulatory powers within an institution that must oversee financial businesses operating under different national legal systems.
Why capital markets matter for European investment
The supervision reforms form part of the EU’s broader Savings and Investments Union initiative.
European policymakers want to increase the availability of private capital for companies investing in technology, defence, infrastructure and industrial development.
The Union has substantial household savings, but much of that money remains in bank deposits or is invested outside the European economy.
Companies seeking capital for expansion may consequently face higher financing costs or more limited investment opportunities than comparable businesses operating in larger and more integrated markets.
Financial-market supervision represents only one element of that programme.
Differences in taxation, insolvency law, national investment products and corporate governance requirements also influence where investors allocate their money.
Nevertheless, regulators regard consistent supervision as an important condition for reducing fragmentation.
Parliament faces a political decision
The agreement reached by finance ministers does not conclude the legislative process.
The European Parliament must adopt its position before negotiations can determine the final provisions.
Parliamentary discussions could revisit the exemptions secured by Germany and the criteria determining which institutions fall under direct ESMA supervision.
The debate will expose differences over whether European financial integration should proceed through incremental reforms or a more substantial transfer of regulatory authority.
Governments supporting national exemptions argue that supervision should reflect the actual geographic scope of a company’s activities.
Supporters of broader European oversight contend that major trading businesses can influence financial markets beyond their home jurisdictions even when individual operations appear predominantly domestic.
The Deutsche Börse exemption has become a prominent example of the conflict between those positions.
Europe’s largest economies broadly support the objective of deeper capital markets, but remain divided over the institutional powers needed to achieve it.
The final legislation will determine whether the expanded responsibilities granted to ESMA are sufficient to reduce fragmentation or leave important parts of Europe’s financial infrastructure operating under substantially different national supervisory systems.
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that required restoration of press passes for 78 journalists employed by three news outlets that President Donald Trump peremptorily banned from the White House on September 18. U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, extended that order on Tuesday, granting a preliminary injunction to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.
While Kelly's TRO was based on CNN et al.'s claim that their sudden banishment violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, his justification for the preliminary injunction also addresses their argument that revocation of their press passes violated the First Amendment by retaliating against them for constitutionally protected speech and discriminating against them based on viewpoint. Kelly concludes that the plaintiffs "are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims."
A retaliation claim requires showing that the plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment, that the defendant's action was "sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness" from "speaking again," and that there was "a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse action." Although the government's lawyers did not dispute that the CNN et al.'s journalism is constitutionally protected, they argued that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the two other elements.
Kelly disagrees. The "hard passes" at issue in this case, he notes, give journalists unescorted access to the White House "press area," which includes "the briefing room, the press offices, and certain other locations in and around the White House that are open to correspondents." CNN et al. argued that "a hard pass is an important credential because it 'allows a reporter to react to fast-developing news' and gives them 'swift and easy access to key official sources.'" Since "the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes matters a lot as to how, whether, and to what extent they can do their jobs," Kelly says, "it is likely that the open-ended ban here would chill a reporter's work."
Trump's "own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs'
hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before," Kelly adds. The day he announced the ban, Trump complained that CNN et al. "purposely write negative news" to "try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration." Although "the ban would go as far as you can," he added, "I'd love it" if "they could straighten themselves out."
The plaintiffs also have shown "there is likely a causal link between the exercise of their First Amendment rights and the revocation of their hard passes and exclusion from the White House press area," Kelly writes. "President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him."
Again, Trump's public comments amply support that conclusion. He explicitly said he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "as a result of their constant 'reporting' [of] FAKE NEWS," adding that journalists "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America." When asked whether his decision was motivated by a "particular reason" or "particular story," Trump replied: "No, no. It's really just cumulative stories over the last two years." The problem, he said, was "purposely negative stories."
In a Truth Social post three days later, Trump likewise condemned "Fake News" that he said was "corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control." CNN et al.'s reporters are "Third Rate Clowns" who "purposefully distort, twist, and degrade with everything they write or publish," he added that evening. "Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country! No matter how GREAT my Achievements, they trivialize and demean."
Trump offered a similar defense of the ban in a September 28 interview with Time. "It's just bad story after bad story," and "most of them are fake," he complained. "I don't think anybody should be forced to bear fake news, constantly bad stories, because I've done great things." Although "I can name 100 great things I've done," he added, "I never get good press. I never get fair press."
The government's lawyers maintained that Trump or another official "would have reached the same decision" based on the "alternative ground" that CNN et al. had violated "minimum professional journalistic standards" by "publishing classified and national security information." Kelly was not impressed by that belated rationale, which no one mentioned until after the news outlets gave the government a copy of their lawsuit.
"There is no evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke
Plaintiffs' hard passes on national security grounds," Kelly writes. "Nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision. When he announced the ban with his post on September 18, he did not mention national security. When he was asked later that day about the 'particular reason' for his action, he did not mention national security."
Trump did mention "national security" in Truth Social posts he wrote the day that CNN et al. filed their lawsuit. But "that expression appears to have been simply another way for him to describe Plaintiffs' alleged inaccuracies and unfairness in their reporting about topics like his achievements or electoral success," Kelly says. "All this suggests that 'national security' was merely a post-hoc justification for the decision, which greatly undermines" the claim that Trump would have "taken the same action in the absence of Plaintiffs' protected speech."
The government also cited letters to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House Press Office, which were sent four days after Trump banned them. Those letters averred that the three news outlets had violated "the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex" by "publishing sensitive or classified information" and "trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues."
The letters "hardly move the needle" on the question of why Trump banned CNN et al. from the White House, Kelly says. They "appear to conflate concerns about otherwise protected speech" with "national security concerns," he notes, and they do not even explicitly say that Trump "made the decision for national security reasons."
Each letter lists specific stories to which the White House objected. But Kelly notes that two reporters "had their hard passes renewed after publishing articles that Defendants cite in their September 22 letters as supporting the potential revocation of their hard passes."
The Trump administration tried to shore up its "national security" justification by submitting a declaration from Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson. While Wilson explains "how the publication of classified and sensitive information can undermine national security," Kelly notes, she "says little to nothing about President Trump's decision to revoke Plaintiffs' hard passes" and does not say "anything about White House press practices or operations."
The defendants "have not really tried to support" the claim that CNN et al.'s reporting "damaged national security," Kelly says, noting that news stories based on "sensitive or classified information" are "commonplace, for better or worse." If Trump "would have banned Plaintiffs from the White House even in the absence of their protected speech," he suggests, "Defendants would not have had to scramble to make their case with unsigned letters and a declarant who does not even work there."
The evidence of retaliation also supports the claim that Trump discriminated against CNN et al. based on viewpoint, which is presumptively unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kelly notes, has held that "the White House Press Area" qualifies as a "nonpublic forum," meaning journalists cannot be excluded because of the views they have expressed.
"It is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased," Kelly writes. "In other words, it was 'an effort to suppress the speaker's activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view,' rather than to vindicate any other purportedly 'compelling governmental interest,' including maintaining professional standards for journalists or protecting national security. Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination."
Kelly's decision "is a stinging defeat for Trump's assault on the free press and a powerful vindication of the First Amendment," Caitlin Vogus, senior adviser for advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an emailed press release. "As Kelly rightly recognized, presidents don't get to use their power to purge journalists because they don't like what they report."
O ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze, do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE), deu nesta terça-feira (13) 24 horas para que o deputado Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) e o senador e candidato à Presidência Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) removam um vídeo que mostra crianças criticando o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, candidato à reeleição.
Publicado na segunda-feira (12), Dia das Crianças, o vídeo editado mostra crianças lendo um texto que atribui a Lula problemas como inflação e falta de segurança. Também são alvo de críticas Fábio Luís Lula da Silva, o Lulinha, um dos filhos do presidente, e o PT.
O vídeo foi primeiro publicado nas redes sociais de Nikolas e posteriormente replicado no canal Tropa do Flávio, de apoio ao presidenciável no aplicativo de mensagens WhatsApp.
Bellizze atendeu a um pedido da coligação Brasil Pronto pra Mais, de apoio a Lula, que alegou a disseminação de desinformação sobre o candidato. A decisão ainda deverá ser submetida ao plenário do TSE.
Para o ministro, o vídeo “ultrapassou o razoável” ao tentar mobilizar o eleitor por meio “da exploração inadequada da inocência infantil”. O magistrado também apontou que o texto do vídeo dá caráter factual a observações controversas e descontextualizadas.
O ministro escreveu ainda que a mera aparição de crianças e adolescentes em material de cunho político não constitui ilícito por si só, mas a exploração delas para veicular narrativa potencialmente enganosa e propaganda negativa contra candidato pode ser considerada irregular.
A Agência Brasil busca contato com os citados para comentar a decisão.
The shifting money in the final weeks of midterm campaigns points to a defensive posture by Republicans and new aggression from Democrats, who aim to capitalize on President Donald Trump's weak approval ratings.
Em declarações à VTM, o presidente da associação, José Gonçalves, destacou a importância de reunir pessoas que contribuíram para o crescimento do clube ao longo de cinco décadas e que partilharam experiências marcantes. “Este jantar tem como objetivo reunir muitas pessoas que representaram o Flaviense ao longo destes anos e celebrar os momentos bonitos que todos viveram neste clube”.
José Gonçalves, que assumiu a presidência há cerca de dois anos, recordou também a sua ligação pessoal à instituição, na qual foi atleta. O dirigente considera que o clube teve um papel importante na sua formação pessoal, ensinando-lhe valores que o acompanharam ao longo da vida. “Sinto uma enorme alegria neste momento, aqui a celebrar 50 anos de um clube no qual também fui atleta e que me ensinou a ser homem”.
Atualmente, a Associação Desportiva Flaviense conta com cerca de 300 atletas, distribuídos pelas modalidades de futebol, futsal e basquetebol, fazendo uma aposta forte na formação. Só no futebol, o clube conta com cerca de 200 atletas, desde os quatro anos até aos sub-16. Quanto ao basquetebol, esta modalidade encontra-se ainda numa fase de desenvolvimento, com a realização de captações para a formação de equipas, referiu José Gonçalves.
Artigo exclusivo PREMIUM
Tenha acesso ilimitado a todos os conteúdos do site e à edição semanal em formato digital.
It sounds absurd, but as my newest video shows, that's really happening.
How can that be? Doesn't America's Constitution say government may not impose "excessive fines"?
It happens because some bureaucrats, savoring their power, act like tyrants.
At least now there is hope for a remedy. One of these excessive fine cases has reached the Supreme Court.
Ken Jouppi worked as a pilot in Alaska for 30 years, until one day, state troopers stopped his plane before takeoff.
"I didn't think we had anything to hide," he says. "They searched the airplane, opened up this lady's boxes of groceries and found beer."
Transporting beer. That was his crime.
"Isn't beer legal in America?" I ask Jouppi's lawyer, Mike Greenberg.
"In most places," he replies. But some towns in Alaska ban beer.
Jouppi was convicted of bootlegging.
Every pilot must know which town has what rule, and search everybody?
"They think pilots should search people's luggage," says Jouppi. "It was such a terrible thing to do to another individual, invade their privacy, and assault their dignity….I just didn't feel right about doing that."
"That airplane was my primary source of income," says Jouppi. "Without it, I didn't have a business anymore."
I assumed such excessive punishment would be dismissed quickly by a court. But it wasn't.
"Jouppi has been fighting to keep his plane for 14 years," says Greenberg. "The plane is still sitting on a tarmac….It's a ludicrous situation where the state has every interest in going after valuable assets rather than actually fighting supposed harms of alcohol."
Greenberg's law firm, the Institute for Justice, took Jouppi's case, and now the U.S. Supreme Court will hear it.
I hope he wins. It's just wrong when governments destroy lives for small mistakes.
They're also doing that to Tuncay Saydam, a retired professor.
The IRS demands he pay $400,000 because he didn't know to fill out a one-page form about an old bank account in his native Turkey.
"The fines," says Saydam, "will destroy my life….We have never been rich."
His unpaid tax is less than $30,000. But the IRS demands he pay them more than $400,000. A California court upheld that penalty. Northern Californian Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu wrote, "Government suffered a significant tax loss."
When they saw greenhouses, they fined property owners.
Blu Graham was fined $900,000, "$30,000 a day, when all I've ever done is grow vegetables in my greenhouses."
"There actually was no marijuana on the property!" says Greenberg. "They were just guessing that if you built a greenhouse, this must be connected to marijuana."
Finally, a lawsuit got the county to promise to end its ruinous fine system.
But it took four years.
Why do governments fight to keep outrageous fines that punish largely innocent people?
"Unlike other forms of punishment," says Greenberg, "fines make the government money. The prosecutor's office, state troopers, they get to keep the proceeds. It's an abusive system because they have every incentive to continue to prosecute."
I invited the heavy-fining judges and government lawyers to appear in my video to explain these fines. None would agree to talk about it.
Bureaucrats always want more money. It's a reason the Constitution prohibits excessive fines.
I trust that the Supreme Court will put a stop to these abuses.
JPMorganChase has appointed two senior leaders to help expand its support for U.S. shipbuilding and the maritime industry under its $1.5 trillion Security and Resiliency Initiative (SRI), a 10-year effort...
Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president from 2005 to 2010, has written an open letter to US President Donald Trump and posted it on Facebook on 14 October. Without naming it, the letter takes aim at the green light Washington gave Russian diesel trade five days earlier, after a call between Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Russia banned its diesel exports in July amid a fuel crisis at home, after Ukrainian strikes on refineries had already cut those exports, and last week’s US waiver and the supply deal Trump announced with Moscow would put that fuel back on world markets while Russian strikes still kill Ukrainian civilians.
What Yushchenko says Russian fuel buys
Yushchenko wrote that Russian ballistic missiles, Iranian Shahed drones, and aerial bombs strike homes every day and night in Kyiv, Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Dnipro, and Kharkiv. Whenever there is talk of “concessions” or deals with Putin, he wrote, the Kremlin answers with more missiles, more drones, and more bloodshed.
Explore further
Trump’s Russian diesel deal, which drew fury in Ukraine, is unlikely to lower prices, experts say
Yushchenko rejected calls for Ukraine to “restrain its strikes against the infrastructure that finances and sustains Russia’s war.”
“Money paid for Russian fuel is not an abstraction called ‘commerce.’ It finances an economy geared toward total war,” he wrote.
Nuclear arms, Pearl Harbor, and Iwo Jima
Yushchenko wrote that Ukraine inherited “one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world” and agreed to give it up, trusting the words and signatures of great powers. In his view, by signing the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, America took on a moral responsibility toward Ukraine.
He compared trade in Russian energy to America’s trade with Imperial Japan, which included strategically important materials, before the US entered World War II. Washington hoped for years to avoid a wider war in the Pacific, he wrote, but economic pressure and diplomacy could not prevent catastrophe.
Explore further
Ukraine warns of “a new type of humanitarian crisis” as Russia aims at its biggest cities
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. America knows how dangerous it is to believe that trade can tame an aggressor, Yushchenko wrote, adding: “History taught us that lesson at a terrible price.”
He also named two men he called Ukrainian. One was Sergeant Michael Strank, whose family, Yushchenko wrote, came from Lemkivshchyna. The son of immigrants from Czechoslovakia, Strank took part in the famous raising of the US flag on Iwo Jima, according to the Marine Corps. The other was Oleksandr Silvashko, “a Ukrainian boy from the Cherkasy region,” who, Yushchenko wrote, was the first to embrace US Lieutenant William Robertson when American and Soviet forces met at the Elbe in April 1945.
“One does not negotiate with tyrants—one stops them,” Yushchenko concluded.
US defense-tech company CHAOS Industries introduced its Vespid interceptor family in Washington on 12 October, as the Association of the US Army (AUSA) annual meeting opened there, the company announced. CHAOS pitches the drones as low-cost defense against small and mid-size drones and one-way attack munitions. The company expects initial production capacity of 12,000 interceptors a year, expandable to 50,000 as demand grows.
The pitch lands as Russia moves its strike drones to jet power. Russia has stopped building the Geran-3, an earlier jet model, and makes about 3,000 faster Geran-4s and Geran-5s a month, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) told Militarnyi in August. In mid-September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said two Ukrainian companies had passed combat tests with interceptors against such drones, while 67 were still working on them. Ukrainian defense outlet Defense Express measured the new US drones against exactly that threat.
One to carry, one to launch in batches
The Mk 1 made its first public appearance on 12 October aboard a Forterra MESA autonomous ground vehicle, Army Recognition reported. It fires from tubes on launchers such as the 10-round ISS Aerospace HAL10. It takes midcourse guidance from CHAOS radars or external command systems, then an AI-assisted infrared seeker handles the final approach, the company says. An electric ducted fan rather than a jet engine drives it, which CHAOS says cuts cost and logistics compared with turbojet interceptors.
The smaller Mk 0 is man-portable and needs no operator input once fired, its product page says. Both are rated to reach a target in under 100 seconds, with a listed range of 10+ km. Defense Express called that range a serious weakness that more launchers around a city could offset.
Explore further
Most drone interceptors ram or explode. This Ukrainian one just throws a net—six shots to a module
CHAOS lists cruise speeds of 100 m/s (360 km/h) for the Mk 0 and 150 m/s (540 km/h) for the Mk 1. Defense Express said those speeds may be enough to intercept the Geran-4 and Geran-5, which it puts at 340 km/h and 450–600 km/h.
Ukrainian makers say their interceptors already down jet Gerans
Wild Hornets’ Sting interceptors downed several of the slower jet-powered Geran-3s in November 2025. An unnamed Wild Hornets representative told NV, in an interview published on 22 September, that the company’s new interceptor had destroyed about ten Geran-4s and several Geran-5s in limited use. The company plans mass production within a month of finishing combat tests.
On 12 October, former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov said he and Pavlo Yelizarov, commander of Lasar’s Group, had created a new interceptor with troops and engineers. He said it downed two Geran-5s headed for Kyiv.
Crews from Lasar’s Group, which Fedorov has called a National Guard special unit, flew those combat tests, he said. Separately, Fedorov reported in August that a Ukrainian jet interceptor with a top speed above 600 km/h had entered combat testing.
Russian attacks have injured 1,125 Kyiv residents since the start of 2026. Of these, 379 people, or nearly 34%, were injured in just five weeks, from 27 August to 7 October, Tetiana Mostepan, director of the Kyiv City State Administration’s Department of Health, said in an interview published on 13 October.
Russian air attacks on Kyiv have intensified since late August. Air attacks occur both day and night, and Russian drones target not only military facilities but also civilian buildings, including apartments. As a result, the number of casualties is also increasing. More than 40% of emergency medical responses to attacks this year occurred between late August and early October, Mostepan noted.
During this period, the capital’s emergency medical teams responded to 782 calls related to the attacks, the department director said. She also released data showing that 138 medical facilities in Kyiv have been damaged since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, including 47 this year.
“And when we talk about statistics, I always emphasize that behind every number is a human life. These are people who have been injured, as well as medical workers who respond to attack sites to save them,” Mostepan said.
People giving first aid to two women injured in the Russian drone strike, Kyiv, 8 September 2026. Photo: Zelenskyy's Telegram
Russian attacks on Kyiv have become more frequent
Russia attacked Kyiv with drones throughout the day, Suspilne Kyiv reported on 27 August. Air raid alerts were issued 12 times in the capital, drone debris was found in five districts, and at least four people were injured, the report said. Russian forces used about 140 attack drones against Ukraine throughout the day, more than 100 of them jet-powered, the Ukrainian Air Force reported at the time.
At least 38 people were killed and dozens injured in a Russian drone strike on an ammunition depot in the Bucha district near Kyiv, triggering a massive fire and hours of explosions in a residential area, CNN reported. The attack in the Bucha district came amid near-constant Russian airstrikes, which continued into Sunday, the outlet reported.
Russian forces were likely seeking to exhaust Ukraine’s air defenses, disrupt civilians’ daily lives, and increase the scale of destruction, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said, citing CNN’s reporting.
On 8 September, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed the urgent need to strengthen support for Ukraine, particularly by providing air defense systems. Delays in delivering assistance cost human lives, he said.
On 1 October, a Russian drone struck a school in Kyiv’s Solomianskyi district while 104 children were inside, Suspilne reported. Students and school staff took shelter, so no one was injured, the report said.
Aftermath of the Russian attack on a school in Kyiv’s Solomianskyi district, 1 October 2026. Photo: Suspilne News/Oleksandr Mahula
Russian attacks continue after Trump’s announcement of an energy ceasefire
Following US President Donald Trump’s announcement of an energy ceasefire, Russia continued striking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including in Kyiv. On 13 October, Russian ballistic missiles struck Kyiv, hitting a thermal power plant in the second attack in 24 hours without advance warning from Ukraine’s allies, Zelenskyy said. The evening and morning strikes killed four people in Kyiv, three of them women in a high-rise in Desnianskyi district, Kyiv prosecutors said.
Aftermath of the attack on Kyiv on the night of 14 October 2026. Photo: Kyiv State Emergency Service
Russia attacked energy and critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kyiv Oblast, and Kharkiv with 39 ballistic missiles and more than 120 attack drones, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 14 October. At least 600,000 people were left without electricity, he said. Later that day, an accident on the grid cut power to part of Kyiv’s right bank, energy company DTEK said.
O Fórum das Entidades Nacionais dos Servidores Públicos Federais (Fonasefe) denunciou, nesta terça-feira (13), a retirada de publicações de seu perfil oficial no Instagram, por determinação da Justiça Eleitoral. Em nota, o fórum disse que a ação se configura censura, além de um "grave cerceamento" do debate público.
Segundo o fórum, a determinação da Justiça Eleitoral teve por objetivo impedir a população de conhecer o histórico de ataques a serviços públicos e direitos dos servidores federais. A Meta já removeu 13 conteúdos do perfil do Instagram do Fonasefe.
A medida foi tomada após representação apresentada pelo candidato à Presidência da República pelo PL, Flávio Bolsonaro.
"Entre as publicações está o material Lembrar para Não Esquecer – 5 Ataques de Bolsonaro aos Serviços e Servidores Públicos”, além de conteúdos com críticas aos posicionamentos do candidato, como a proposta anunciada de tesouraço que afeta diretamente os serviços públicos do país", diz a nota.
Decisão
A decisão, assinada pelo ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze, do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE), determinou a remoção, no prazo de 24 horas, de conteúdos específicos publicados pelo Fonasefe, além de proibir a republicação das mesmas peças.
Segundo o ministro, trata-se de propaganda eleitoral irregular na internet:
"Na linha do entendimento firmado por esta Corte Superior é vedada a propaganda eleitoral em sítios eletrônicos vinculados a pessoas jurídicas ou a agentes econômicos que atuem de fato como tais."
"A participação de pessoas jurídicas em atos de propaganda eleitoral, em período de pré-campanha ou de campanha eleitoral, é incompatível com o posicionamento do Supremo Tribunal Federal que lhes vedou a realização de doações para campanhas eleitorais e com a racionalidade adotada por esta Corte", escreveu ainda o ministro.
Declarações públicas
O Fonasefe argumenta que as publicações têm como base notícias veiculadas pela imprensa, que tratam de fatos relacionados às políticas adotadas durante o governo Jair Bolsonaro e declarações públicas do próprio Flávio Bolsonaro e de integrantes de sua assessoria de campanha.
"O Fórum considera que o histórico de medidas governamentais e as posições assumidas por candidatos em relação ao serviço público são assuntos de interesse coletivo e devem poder ser discutidos pela sociedade e, certamente, pelas entidades representativas dos servidores", continua a nota.
“Ainda de acordo com o Fonasefe, nenhuma das peças fazia pedido de voto ou trazia informações inverídicas. Além disso, a articulação "não é uma personalidade jurídica formal, não está portanto vedado pela legislação eleitoral de publicar esse tipo de manifestação".
"O direito à informação não pode ser confundido com propaganda irregular", argumenta.
Na avaliação da entidade, restringir a circulação dessas informações pode limitar o acesso dos servidores a elementos importantes para a formação de sua opinião política.
O fórum disse ainda que seguirá defendendo o serviço público, os direitos dos trabalhadores e a liberdade de manifestação das entidades representativas.
"A democracia exige eleições livres para que a sociedade tenha acesso à informação e possa questionar, criticar e cobrar aqueles que disputam o poder", finaliza a nota.
Ukraine is drafting crisis scenarios for November to March as Russian strikes target the country’s biggest cities, Head of the Presidential Office Kyrylo Budanov said on 13 October after chairing a meeting with donor-country diplomats and humanitarian organizations. His deputy Iryna Vereshchuk warned the same day that this winter may bring a new type of humanitarian crisis. She asked donors to be ready with fast extra funding.
Russia has struck Ukraine’s grid deep into winter before: last February, it launched more than 500 missiles and drones as temperatures fell below −20°C. Strikes have continued despite a US-announced energy truce Moscow has not confirmed. Kyiv now wants donors ready to pay for the humanitarian fallout in advance.
Crisis scenarios for November to March
The core task is clear crisis scenarios and synchronized response plans for that period, Budanov wrote. The government is building a baseline threat scenario through the State Emergency Service, while the military and intelligence will provide a risk assessment.
“The available resource must be concentrated where people will have the hardest time,” Budanov wrote.
Ukraine, he added, must hold its rear as reliably as the Defense Forces hold the front line.
What officials mean by a new type of crisis
A war of rear areas is underway, Vereshchuk wrote. Russia is changing tactics in an attempt to deepen the humanitarian crisis, especially in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and Dnipro, she added.
Vereshchuk did not define what makes the crisis new, but she tied her warning to the big cities.
“This winter, it is the big cities that may become the testing ground of our national resilience,” she wrote.
Humanitarian organizations must adapt their plans to protect and support civilians, Vereshchuk wrote. Donors, she said, must be ready to provide additional crisis-response funding quickly.
The capital lags behind
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on 13 October that even border and frontline oblasts were ahead of Kyiv on resilience plans as of mid-October. Even single hits by Shahed attack drones can cut power and water across much of the capital, he noted. He also began consultations on urgent security and management steps to fix the situation in the city.
Explore further
Three days after Washington announced an energy ceasefire, Russia fires 39 ballistic missiles at Ukraine’s grid
Russia carried out more than 200 strikes on Ukraine’s power generation and transmission in the week to 11 October, Zelenskyy said. Overnight on 14 October, Russia fired 39 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones at energy and critical infrastructure. The barrage left at least 600,000 people without power, Zelenskyy said.
Il caro energia torna al centro dell’agenda economica del Governo. Giorgia Meloni ha infatti indicato nel costo dell’energia “la questione che oggi pesa più di tutto sulla nostra economia e sulla competitività delle imprese”.
Lo ha fatto nel corso delle comunicazioni rese al Senato, in vista del Consiglio europeo del 15 e 16 ottobre. Ha spiegato la necessità di “una risposta coordinata e rapida” su scala continentale, perché “nessuno può rispondere efficacemente da solo”.
Accanto al dossier energia, la premier ha toccato altri due nodi economici molto delicati:
trattativa sul prossimo bilancio pluriennale dell’Unione europea;
calendario dei rimborsi del debito legato al Next Generation Eu (strumento da cui dipende anche il Piano nazionale di ripresa e resilienza).
Stretta sul metano: rinvio di un anno
Parlando di regole energetiche, la premier ha voluto rivendicate esplicitamente un traguardo raggiunto in campo europeo:
Ci sono sviluppi anche sul regolamento Ue sul metano. (…) Le nuove prescrizioni previste per gli importatori rischierebbero di restringere ulteriormente l’offerta disponibile e re nuove pressioni sui prezzi. Per questo abbiamo chiesto una sospensione temporanea di alcuni obblighi.
Meloni ha rivendicato il risultato come un successo italiano, ricordando quanto sembrasse difficile far avanzare la proposta. Ora però gli scenari sono diversi e “la Commissione europea ha deciso di rinviare di un anno l’entrata in vigore del regolamento”.
Di fatto da Bruxelles hanno annunciato la volontà di far slittare dal 2027 al 2028 gli obblighi legati alle importazioni di gas, petrolio e carbone, così da “evitare ulteriori pressioni sulla sicurezza dell’approvvigionamento”. Il provvedimento, però, non è ancora definitivo. La proposta dovrà essere approvata formalmente dal Parlamento europeo e dagli Stati membri.
Caro energia, le richieste dell’Italia
C’è una chiara necessità di rivedere delle regole europee, ha spiegato Meloni. Sono state infatti pensate in un contesto completamente diverso da quello attuale, ha ribadito. Se mantenute così come sono, rischiano “di aggravare gli effetti delle crisi che stiamo attraversando”.
Sul fronte economico il discorso è stato molto chiaro:
Le nostre imprese affrontano oggi una concorrenza globale sempre più aggressiva, e ogni costo in più che l’Europa impone a sé stessa è un vantaggio che regala ai suoi concorrenti.
La richiesta portata al tavolo del Consiglio è quindi duplice:
intervento comune sui prezzi dell’energia;
semplificazione normativa che non penalizzi il sistema produttivo europeo.
Bilancio europeo, l’Italia non firma
Il passaggio più netto del suo intervento riguarda però il bilancio europeo, ovvero il prossimo Quadro finanziario pluriennale:
La presidenza irlandese e le istituzioni europee hanno indicato l’obiettivo di arrivare a un accordo entro la fine dell’anno. Noi non siamo contrari per principio. (…) Non firmeremo però un accordo non vantaggioso per rispettare una data.
Di fatto l’intesa ci sarà, ma solo “quando sarà giusto per l’Italia”. Tracciati due confini ben chiari. Da un lato l’Italia non accetterà un bilancio che ridimensioni la Politica agricola comune, la Pesca e la Coesione. Dall’altro, invece, sulle nuove risorse proprie proposte dalla Commissione il Governo ha “diverse riserve”. Si punta ad “alleggerire per quanto possibile il peso sui bilanci nazionali, senza nuove tasse”.
Pnrr e Next Generation Eu: rimborsi più graduali
Sul fronte debito comune, la premier ha chiesto di “ragionare anche su un rimborso più graduale” del Next Generation Eu (lo strumento che ha finanziato il Pnrr). È fondamentale evitare che i rimborso “comprimano le altre politiche” europee, “proprio quando serve investire di più”.
Di fatto la proposta italiana è quella di diluire nel tempo la restituzione per non sottrarre spazio agli investimenti nazionali. Meloni si è inoltre detta aperta alle discussioni in merito, senza chiudere le porte a nuove forme di finanziamento comune, purché non si traducano in un peso ulteriore sui conti italiani.
Extra gettito Iva
Sul fronte meramente interno, Meloni ha indicato nell’extra gettito Iva una leva da destinare a famiglie e imprese. Un passaggio ponte che collega il suo lungo discorso europeo alla legge di Bilancio in lavorazione.
Di fatto le risorse disponibili per misure come il taglio dell’Irpef dipenderanno anche dai margini negoziati a Bruxelles, oltre che dall’andamento delle entrate. Tutto ciò viene sottolineato in una fase cruciale, con l’esecutivo alle prese con coperture limitate e un quadro macroeconomico che resta sotto osservazione.
A Rádio Nacional transmite nesta quarta-feira (14) o duelo de ida entre Fluminense e Palmeiras, válido pela semifinal da Copa Libertadores. As equipes se enfrentam às 21h30 no estádio do Maracanã, no Rio de Janeiro. A jornada esportiva da emissora pública começa às 21h15.
O Palmeiras garantiu sua vaga na semifinal da Libertadores com muita emoção. Após vencer a LDU por 1 a 0 no jogo de ida, em São Paulo, o Alviverde sofreu uma virada por 3 a 2 em Quito, mas confirmou a classificação na disputa por pênaltis. Já o Fluminense assegurou sua vaga ao derrotar o Platense por 3 a 1 na soma dos placares.
A transmissão da emissora começa com a faixa Show de Bola Nacional e conta com uma equipe completa para levar ao público todas as informações do confronto. A partida terá narração de André Luiz Mendes e comentários de Mário Silva. O jornalista Mauricio Costa comanda a reportagem e o plantão da rodada.
O jogo entra no ar para parte da rede em AM e OC, além da FM no Rio de Janeiro, no Alto Solimões e parceiros da Rede Nacional de Comunicação Pública (RNCP). A Nacional FM nas demais praças segue com o conteúdo musical. O ouvinte pode ficar ligado nas produções preferidas pelo dial, no app e no site da emissora. Os áudios ainda estão disponíveis em tempo real por streaming nas duas plataformas.
Copa Libertadores
A Copa Conmebol Libertadores é o principal torneio de clubes da América do Sul, organizado pela Confederação Sul-Americana de Futebol (Conmebol). Disputada anualmente desde 1960, a competição reúne as equipes mais qualificadas de cada país do continente, definidas por seus desempenhos nas ligas nacionais.
Considerada o equivalente sul-americano da Liga dos Campeões da Europa, a Libertadores consagra o campeão continental, que passa a representar a região no Mundial de Clubes.
Cobertura esportiva da Nacional
Esporte que é paixão do povo brasileiro, o futebol é um dos destaques da programação da Rádio Nacional, emissora pública referência em transmissões de partidas no país há décadas. Os jogos das principais competições e as notícias mais importantes têm espaço nas jornadas esportivas diárias.
Os torcedores podem ficar ligados pelo rádio, site ou streaming para acompanhar as emoções das disputas entre os maiores clubes brasileiros. Antes e depois dos confrontos, o ouvinte se informa sobre a preparação das equipes e a repercussão do placar nas ondas da Nacional. A análise sobre os resultados da rodada ainda ganha janela diária para um rico debate em produções consagradas no radiojornalismo esportivo.
A equipe da Rádio Nacional reúne craques da crônica esportiva. São produtores, jornalistas e apresentadores que buscam o diferencial da notícia. Além de informar o público nas ondas do rádio, o time também faz bonito na telinha da TV Brasil. Os profissionais realizam o programa Stadium, de terça a sexta, às 18h30.
Sempre ao vivo, as tradicionais produções da emissora pública trazem análises e apurações atualizadas. O esporte tem espaço destacado na programação do canal. O telejornal diário Repórter Brasil, às 12h45 e às 19h, também oferece ampla cobertura dos principais resultados do dia.
Prêmio TV Brasil Petrobras Para Elas
Ajude a escolher a vencedora da categoria Craque da Torcida do Prêmio TV Brasil Petrobras Para Elas. A premiação criada pela TV Brasil e pela Petrobras vai reconhecer ainda atletas, treinadores e treinadoras, dirigentes, departamentos de futebol feminino e clubes que se destacarem ao longo da temporada de 2026. A votação da categoria com voto popular já está aberta, é gratuita e tem votos ilimitados.
Russia has nearly finished the first section of a new launch site for jet-powered Geran-5 attack drones near the town of Millerovo in Rostov Oblast, anonymous Ukrainian OSINT channel Absolutely Reliable Source reported on 13 October. The channel’s bio says it covers Ukraine’s deep strikes and that its author belongs to a larger, unnamed structure. It says Russia rushed the build to scale up attacks after its September strikes on Kyiv.
The site is meant for the kind of drone Ukraine stops far less often than the older Shaheds. Ukraine downs 55% of jet-powered Shaheds, the class that includes the Geran-5, and more than 90% of the older propeller-driven ones, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 26 September. Russian industry makes about 3,000 Geran-4 and Geran-5 drones a month, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) told Militarnyi in August. A new launch site is how Russia plans to fire more of them, the channel argues.
Built in weeks, by the channel’s count
The channel’s images from 1 September show no construction at the site. The latest ones show eight prepared positions for launchers and 32 places for preparing drones for launch, the channel wrote. Imagery from the day before its post shows drones being unloaded in one zone, it said.
Millerovo drone base, 1 September 2026. Satellite image: t.me/absolutely_reliableMillerovo drone base, 12 October 2026. Satellite image: t.me/absolutely_reliable
The channel’s headline says the work took a month. Ukrainian outlet Militarnyi, comparing the channel’s own images from 1 September and 12 October, put it at about six weeks. Both readings rest on the same images, which have not been independently verified.
Built like Tsymbulova
The construction style is very similar to Tsymbulova, Russia’s jet-drone base in Oryol Oblast, the channel wrote. That base has separate positions for storing, preparing, and launching jet drones, Militarnyi said. By late May, less than a month into an expansion of Tsymbulova, Russia was already building 10 more launchers there.
Ukrainian drones have hit Tsymbulova repeatedly, though most of the damage imagery comes from Absolutely Reliable Source. Militarnyi reported strikes on the base’s bunkers and hangars in September. Ukraine’s Defense Forces struck it again overnight on 1 October, damaging two ground shelters and drone preparation areas, Absolutely Reliable Source said. On 10 October, OSINT channel Exilenova+ reported another drone strike there, saying several bunkers, one jet-drone launcher, and a drone storage area were hit.
L’inflazione torna a pesare sui conti pubblici e sulle tasse. Da un lato aumenta alcune voci di spesa dello Stato, come pensioni, assegno unico, acquisti della Pubblica amministrazione e interessi sul debito. Dall’altro lato spinge le entrate fiscali, soprattutto attraverso Iva e Irpef. Nel caso dell’Irpef il meccanismo si chiama fiscal drag, o drenaggio fiscale. Si verifica quando i redditi nominali aumentano per rincorrere l’inflazione, ma gli scaglioni e le soglie fiscali non vengono adeguati allo stesso ritmo. Il risultato è che il contribuente può pagare più imposte anche senza un reale aumento del potere d’acquisto.
L’ipotesi taglio Irpef al ceto medio
Il tema entra nel confronto sulla prossima manovra e si lega alla proposta di tagliare l’Irpef per il ceto medio. L’ipotesi discussa prevede di alzare da 50mila a 60mila euro la soglia di reddito a cui si applica l’aliquota del 33%.
La misura è sostenuta da una parte della maggioranza, ma presenta un costo rilevante: circa 2,7 miliardi di euro all’anno. Una cifra importante, soprattutto in una manovra che, al netto dell’extradeficit da clausola, potrebbe valere complessivamente tra 7 e 8 miliardi di euro, coperture permettendo.
In merito all’ipotesi taglio Irpef, il vicepremier Antonio Tajani ha dichiarato: “Sul nuovo taglio Irpef bisogna assolutamente procedere”. Il viceministro all’Economia Maurizio Leo ha invece precisato: “Non è stata presa ancora alcuna decisione”.
Più gettito, ma non più coperture
Il gettito prodotto dal fiscal drag non può essere considerato automaticamente una nuova copertura per finanziare altre spese. L’Irpef aggiuntiva generata dall’aumento nominale dei redditi è già inserita nei tendenziali di finanza pubblica, cioè nelle previsioni su deficit e debito a legislazione vigente.
Una parte dell’aumento del gettito atteso dalle imposte dirette tra quest’anno e il 2029 deriva proprio da questo effetto. La crescita prevista è pari al 9,3%. Il drenaggio fiscale contribuisce quindi alla traiettoria dei conti pubblici concordata con l’Unione europea, ma non libera automaticamente margini per interventi aggiuntivi.
I numeri del drenaggio fiscale
Secondo le stime del ministero dell’Economia, il fiscal drag dovrebbe produrre 4,4 miliardi di euro quest’anno. Nel 2027 sono attesi altri 3,4 miliardi, nel 2028 2,4 miliardi e nel 2029 2,8 miliardi. Il meccanismo però ha effetti che si sommano nel tempo. Il gettito generato in un anno si ripete anche negli anni successivi. Per questo, in termini cumulati, il drenaggio fiscale potrebbe portare 35,4 miliardi di euro in quattro anni.
Il fiscal drag nasce dall’effetto combinato tra aumento dei redditi nominali e struttura progressiva dell’Irpef. Quando stipendi e pensioni salgono per compensare il caro prezzi, una parte di questi aumenti può finire in scaglioni fiscali più alti o ridurre il peso relativo di detrazioni e soglie.
In pratica, il reddito cresce sulla carta, ma spesso serve solo a compensare l’inflazione. Se il sistema fiscale non viene aggiornato, il prelievo aumenta. Per questo il drenaggio fiscale può generare più gettito per lo Stato, ma non corrisponde necessariamente a una maggiore ricchezza reale per famiglie e lavoratori.
Perché l’effetto del drenaggio fiscale può pesare sui redditi
Il Documento programmatico di finanza pubblica si basa sull’inflazione registrata fino ad agosto dall’indice Foi, riferito alle famiglie di operai e impiegati. Se l’inflazione dovesse restare elevata più a lungo, l’effetto del fiscal drag potrebbe diventare ancora più significativo. Negli anni recenti l’Ufficio parlamentare di bilancio ha stimato che tra il 2021 e il 2023 l’inflazione abbia generato un gettito extra da 25 miliardi l’anno.
Le riforme Irpef hanno compensato integralmente l’effetto per i redditi fino a 32mila euro annui, ma senza indicizzazione degli scaglioni il drenaggio fiscale tende a ripresentarsi. Senza nuovi interventi, l’effetto può riguardare sia le fasce più basse sia il ceto medio, soprattutto quando gli aumenti nominali dei redditi non si traducono in un reale aumento del potere d’acquisto.
Login
