Reports of the chief of staff’s impending demise were shown to be greatly exaggerated as the Trumpworld boss made quick work of the president's impulse hire, making her an example of what happens when she's left out of the loop, Andrew Feinberg writes
Defense Secretary and his closest allies could quickly find themselves hit by subpoenas if opposition Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives come November
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket returns at Cape Canaveral, Florida, after launching a Crew Dragon capsule into orbit on October 1, 2026.
Marco Bello / AFP via Getty Images
SpaceX is phasing out its popular Falcon 9 rocket in favor of its much larger Starship rocket.
That presents a headache for the US Space Force, POLITICO reports.
The Space Force has said it's open to eventually using SpaceX's Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome.
SpaceX's plans to retire its most popular rocket could jeopardize the United States' ability to launch military satellites — a plight compounded by the Pentagon's dependence on Elon Musk's company.
SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of US launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren't designed to fit.
The situation leaves the Space Force in a launch crunch that could affect the military's ability to put its advanced satellites in orbit — and on time. The Pentagon has few alternatives to ferry its equipment, and SpaceX's competitors are likely years away from being able to offer comparable services, reports POLITICO, which — like Business Insider — is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.
"Everybody's having problems, so the Space Force is freaking out a little bit about launch," one former Space Force official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.
It also highlights the scale of Musk's company's footprint and the way its business decisions can affect the security of countries including the United States. From the battlefield in Ukraine, where Kyiv is dependent on his Starlink satellite internet service, to cutting-edge artificial intelligence and SpaceX's stranglehold over the pathways to orbit, the world's first trillionaire has a direct hand in the technology that will shape the future.
The Space Force recently tried to book rides for three future satellite missions, but SpaceX declined to offer its services, according to two people familiar with the missions. No other rocket companies offered to take them either, the people said.
A top official at the Space Force downplayed the problem about finding rockets to launch military satellites.
"I wouldn't say there [are] missions I'm worried about being able to fly; I would say we're working through the right way to support those customers," said Brig. Gen. Eric Zarybnisky, the Space Force's acting portfolio acquisition executive for space access.
But Zarybnisky acknowledged growing pains for the government and space industry as demand for rockets increases. "Temporarily, there are some things we'll need to work through, again, as we get new providers flying," he said.
SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.
The three Space Force missions that didn't find a ride were listed through the National Security Space Launch initiative, or NSSL — the program the service uses to buy rocket launches for its satellites.
Two of the missions were for the Space Development Agency, according to the people. The agency is a branch of the Space Force that's building a network of hundreds of military satellites in low-Earth orbit to provide expanded data services, and missile warning and tracking capabilities.
Details about the third Space Force mission or the precise date for when the Space Force hoped to launch the missions are unclear.
The Space Force has set up a two-lane system for buying its launches, one for less demanding efforts and another for more challenging missions. The hope was that new competitors, such as Rocket Lab, Stoke Space and Relativity, would have an easier time winning contracts for the lower-risk missions. But SpaceX has dominated both lanes with its Falcon rocket, and other providers have been slow to scale up.
The Space Force hopes to use two large rockets from SpaceX competitors to ferry key military satellites into orbit: United Launch Alliance's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn.
But the Vulcan rocket has struggled to launch consistently and was grounded earlier this year after problems with its solid rocket boosters. Space Force officials have been frustrated by ULA's delays and have moved missions slated for a Vulcan to a SpaceX Falcon.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin's New Glenn program had a devastating setback in May when a rocket exploded on the company's only launchpad in Florida — putting the rocket out of commission likely until next year.
The Space Force has said it's open to eventually using SpaceX's Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome because Starship is designed for "flat stack" satellites such as Starlink, while most military satellites are designed for a larger cargo bay. And it's unclear when SpaceX will have the capacity to meet the Pentagon's needs, given its plans to use Starship to build out orbital data-centers and other company priorities.
Other newer companies may have some solutions. Stoke Space, Relativity and Rocket Lab are all working on medium-lift rockets that could help meet the military's needs. But none of those companies has flown successful test flights of their new vehicles, meaning it could take years for them to start launching reliably and frequently.
Zarybnisky remained optimistic that Blue Origin and ULA will work through their technical problems and that new competitors will get up and running in time.
"We're excited to see where those new providers come on board and are able to support the national security base launches that we need," he said.
It's not just the Pentagon feeling the pinch. The move to decommission the Falcon 9 rocket and focus on Starship has sent the entire space industry into panic — especially commercial satellite builders. Some of those firms have been unable to secure Falcon 9 flights after 2028.
The Space Force didn't disclose a set date for when it will fly its last Falcon mission, but Zarybnisky said the service is "actively talking to SpaceX and understanding where the spacecraft programs are, where they are in their build and test cycle. The end date will really be driven by the spacecraft customers that we have launch service contracts for already."
It's unclear what happens after the Space Force runs through that batch of missions. An industry representative warned that the service is unprepared to deal with the crisis coming its way as demand for rockets increases across the space industry.
New rocket companies can't bid on a Space Force launch until they've demonstrated the ability to successfully fly, part of an effort to keep vaporware companies from winning government business. But commercial satellite companies are not restricted in the same way and have been buying up early launches on rockets that haven't even flown yet. This puts more pressure on the Space Force to find future launches.
The launch crunch "probably requires the Space Force to get creative and figure out a way to start buying capacity now before it's too late," the representative said.
Another person familiar with the issue said that Space Force officials need to work with Congress to "fundamentally rethink" how the military acquires launch.
"The Space Force needs to be allowed to reserve multiple launches at a time, much further out into the 2030s, for vehicles that have yet to fly," the person said. "Yes, it's taking on more risk … [but] if it waits for new rockets to prove themselves, it may find they're already sold out."
This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.
A Stanford paper warns that California could lose more in future income taxes than it would raise from a one-time billionaire tax.
Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
Several billionaires have left or plan to leave California over its proposed wealth tax.
The departures could mean that the state loses more in the long term than the one-time tax brings in.
That's according to a working paper shared by a pair of Stanford economists.
Supporters of California’s proposed billionaire tax say it could raise about $100 billion.
But a new paper puts the takings closer to $30 billion and warns that the state could ultimately lose money if its richest residents flee.
Proposition 40, which goes before voters on November 3, would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026, with their wealth valued at the end of the year. Most of the tax proceeds would go toward healthcare.
In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper released this week, Stanford economists Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh estimate the tax would collect between $28 billion and $36 billion — far short of supporters' $100 billion projection.
They point to billionaires moving away before the residency cutoff. Their estimate also assumes legal challenges could prevent California from collecting some of the remaining tax.
The authors identified seven billionaires reported to have left the state before the cutoff: Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, investor Peter Thiel, director Steven Spielberg, Uber cofounder Travis Kalanick, investor David Sacks, and car loan tycoon Don Hankey.
Together, they accounted for nearly 30% of the wealth the researchers considered potentially taxable. The researchers noted that moving out of the state does not, by itself, settle someone's tax residency.
The authors' bigger concern is what happens afterward. California would collect the wealth tax only once, but billionaires who leave could stop paying state income taxes year after year.
If those departures and lost payments last, their model projects an average net loss of $38.9 billion. The researchers said they ran 100,000 simulations, and that in 85% of scenarios, losses outweighed revenues from the tax.
The forecast depends on who actually left and whether they stay away.
California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office offers a less stark view. It expects tens of billions in tax revenue and a possible ongoing drop of less than $1 billion a year in billionaire income-tax payments.
Brin is fighting the proposal on another front, too. He has given at least $102 million to Building a Better California, a group backing efforts to defeat or block Proposition 40. Two competing measures on the same ballot could keep Proposition 40 from taking effect, even if voters approve it.
While some billionaires have been vocal in their opposition to the tax, some have welcomed it. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told CBS News last month that being able to pay an estimated $8 billion over five years would be a "privilege."
In filings released this week, it was revealed that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had considered moving out of California due to the tax, but ultimately decided to stay. To ensure that Zuckerberg has sufficient liquidity to pay without diluting his control of the company, Meta created a new class of shares.
Many economists back the plans. Six Nobel Prize winners — Daron Acemoglu, Abhijit Banerjee, Peter Diamond, Esther Duflo, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz — signed a letter in September calling the proposal the "first opportunity for the people to start reining in the power of billionaires."
At the time, Acemoglu said it could counter years of tax avoidance by the very wealthy and curb their political influence. He said that while the proposal isn’t perfect, it "deserves support."
FIRST ON FOX: A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama is being accused of "misconduct" in a case involving President Donald Trump.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is demanding an investigation into U.S. Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida after she sanctioned Trump's lawyers over his case against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Jordan wrote to the Judicial Conference of the United States that "there is evidence that Judge Williams abused her judicial authority and violated fundamental tenets of judicial impartiality in connection with an unusual and unsupported order that imposed sanctions after the plaintiffs voluntarily had dismissed the underlying action."
The letter is being co-led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel's subcommittee on courts.
Trump, his adult sons Eric and Donald Jr., and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit against the IRS in early 2026 seeking $10 billion in damages after a contractor with the agency leaked the president's tax returns to the press. The contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to five years in federal prison.
Trump, who filed the lawsuit in his personal capacity, had it voluntarily dismissed in May. Shortly after, however, the administration announced a settlement agreement that included $1.776 billion for an "anti-weaponization fund" for victims of "lawfare" by the Biden administration. Trump himself would receive no compensation, but would get a formal apology from the federal government and bar the IRS from ever auditing Trump or his family.
Williams, however, then accused the plaintiffs of purposely manipulating the courts to achieve the settlement and sanctioned two of the president's lawyers in a July order. Her order referred lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary action and prevented lawyer Daniel Epstein from practicing under her jurisdiction for at least a year.
Jordan's letter called the timing of Williams' order "suspect" for coming after the case was voluntarily withdrawn.
He also accused Williams of basing the action on an amicus brief submitted by left-wing judicial activist group Democracy Defenders Action. The brief, which the group said was submitted on behalf of 35 former federal judges, called on Williams to reopen the case despite the dismissal by the involved parties and accused both sides of "fraud" over the settlement.
"Judge Williams issued her July 13 order after the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case, ending the dispute between the parties," Jordan and Issa wrote. "Although Judge Williams invoked the courtâs inherent authority to impose sanctions, the Committee is not aware of Eleventh Circuit precedent applying inherent sanctions authority after a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed a case based on briefing by partisan nonparties on an unrelated question the court never decided."
They concluded, "Judge Williamsâs conduct risks undermining public confidence in the federal courts. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Judicial Conference review this matter, including whether it warrants referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit or other appropriate action, and that you inform the Committee of steps taken no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2026."
Issa told Fox News Digital in his own statement, "The rogue federal judges who make up the Trump Resistance in Robes continue to disappoint but never surprise. Judge Williams hasn't only shown her liberal contempt for President Trump â but crossed a bright ethical line by going after his attorneys."
Trump allies, particularly in Congress, have clashed with federal judges on multiple fronts so far this term. Republicans have accused what they call "activist judges" of weaponizing their courts to block Trump's agenda.
Democrats, meanwhile, backed up Williams' skepticism of Trump's settlement. The anti-weaponization fund proposal, which has since been blocked by other courts, has received bipartisan pushback.
Reports of the chief of staff’s impending demise were shown to be greatly exaggerated as the Trumpworld boss made quick work of the president's impulse hire, making her an example of what happens when she's left out of the loop, Andrew Feinberg writes
Login
