While putting together this week’s Top Five, I noticed something unusual: three seemingly separate stories were connected by one person—Elon Musk.
At the center is a collision of three kinds of power:
Here’s how those three stories connect.
1-3. Elon Musk, Record Midterm Spending, and Friction with Governments
Elon Musk has poured approximately $369 million into the 2026 midterm elections, making him the largest individual political donor of the cycle, according to an October 16 analysis by The Washington Post. Much of that money has gone toward helping Republicans retain control of Congress.
But Musk’s influence extends far beyond campaign contributions.
This week, new reporting raised questions about who ordered restrictions on SpaceX satellite services used by Ukraine to defend itself against Russian attacks. Musk’s influence over SpaceX is substantial. According to the company’s SEC filings, he controls more than 82% of its voting power, giving him authority over major corporate decisions and the selection of its board.
The drones: Ukraine depends heavily on SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network to pilot and coordinate its defense against incoming Russian drones. However, when SpaceX placed speed and usage restrictions on the network, it directly hampered Ukrainian drone operations and sparked an immediate international outcry.
The blame (Musk vs. the Government): When Ukrainian officials and European allies called out Elon Musk, Musk publicly pushed back, claiming that the satellite restrictions weren’t his unilateral choice, but rather a directive controlled by the U.S. government and the White House. Meanwhile, the Trump administration and the Pentagon publicly denied giving direct orders to throttle the network, leaving a messy public dispute over accountability.
The government: The government’s messaging has been contradictory. Reuters initially reported—citing officials familiar with the matter—that the order originated inside the White House. Musk countered, claiming that restrictions on SpaceX’s military-oriented Starshield system were controlled by the U.S. military and the president. However, subsequent reports from The Wall Street Journal and CBS News indicated that Musk himself had directed the slowdown. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later stated that decisions regarding Ukraine’s commercial Starlink access belong to SpaceX, not the White House. On Thursday, President Trump said Musk had restored Ukraine’s satellite access. Ukrainian officials reported improvements, but said service had not returned to full capacity. Meanwhile, questions remained about who originally ordered the restrictions.
Why It Matters
These developments raise a question that goes beyond Musk’s political preferences. There is no established evidence that Musk’s political donations caused the satellite restrictions. But the controversy illustrates how difficult accountability can become when private technology, military operations, and government decision-making overlap.
Here is what we should be asking:
When one person is a major political donor, controls a company with substantial government contracts, and provides technology essential to another country’s defense, who holds that person accountable?
Governments increasingly rely on private innovation (AI, commercial satellites, autonomous technology) because the private sector often moves faster and more efficiently than traditional defense acquisition. However, that reliance creates a profound vulnerability: the state becomes dependent on private entities that ultimately answer to their owners and shareholders, not to voters.
The Bigger Question: When national security depends on privately controlled technology, who should have the final say—the government or the company that owns it?
4. AI Stocks Tumble as Americans Push Back Against Data Centers
Wall Street’s love affair with artificial intelligence hit a rough patch Thursday. The Nasdaq fell 2.6%, while the S&P 500 dropped 1.2%, as investors questioned whether technology companies are spending too much money chasing the AI boom.
But there’s another problem brewing outside Wall Street: Americans are pushing back against the enormous data centers needed to power AI.
These facilities require tremendous amounts of electricity, water, and land. Residents worry about higher utility bills, environmental damage, and whether their communities will benefit from the projects.
And they’re doing something about it.
Across the country, communities are challenging proposed data centers, demanding stricter rules, and placing restrictions on November ballots. According to S&P Global, voters will consider 34 data center-related measures across eight states this election.
The resistance is crossing party lines. Republicans and Democrats who disagree on almost everything else are finding common ground over electricity costs and local control.
Meanwhile, technology companies argue that data centers bring investment, construction jobs, and infrastructure needed to keep America competitive in AI.
Why It Matters
The AI boom isn’t just about technology stocks or the latest chatbot. It’s about who pays for the infrastructure behind it and who benefits.
If a data center requires new power plants or transmission lines, will technology companies cover those costs, or will ordinary households help pay through higher electricity rates?
There’s also a broader fear about jobs. As companies invest billions in artificial intelligence, workers are wondering whether the technology will eventually replace them. So while communities debate the costs of building AI infrastructure, many Americans are also questioning what the technology could mean for their livelihoods.
And as local communities challenge these projects, investors are beginning to recognize that the future of AI may depend as much on public acceptance as it does on technological breakthroughs.
The question: Americans are being asked to embrace the AI revolution. But who gets the benefits, who bears the costs, and what happens to the workers caught in between?
5. Ohio’s Race for Governor Raises a Question: How Far Is Too Far?
Political attack ads are nothing new. But a campaign advertisement in Ohio has sparked an unusual debate, with Republicans publicly disagreeing over whether one of their own candidates crossed a line.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy released an advertisement featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Dr. Amy Acton. In the video, Acton’s mother calls her daughter a liar and urges voters not to elect her.
But there’s a painful history the advertisement leaves out.
Acton has spoken publicly about being sexually abused by her stepfather as a child. Court records confirm that he was arrested and indicted in 1978, although he fled before trial. Acton and her brother were removed from their mother’s custody, and Acton says she has not spoken to her mother since she was 12.
Ramaswamy acknowledged that his campaign produced the advertisement and announced plans to spend $4 million promoting it. He defended the decision, arguing that voters deserve to question his opponent’s honesty.
The response has divided the Republican Party. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine called the advertisement deeply troubling and urged Ramaswamy to remove it. Senator Jon Husted distanced himself from it as well. But neither withdrew their endorsement. And the loudest voices in the party went the other direction.
At a campaign rally in Sharonville, Ohio, Vice President JD Vance told reporters that Acton “lies about every single one of her positions.” Then he turned on his own party. Vance said he was “disgusted” by Republicans criticizing the ad, called politics “a tough business,” and told fellow Republicans to “stop whining about an advertisement and go win the race.” On Thursday, President Trump went further, encouraging Ramaswamy to keep airing the ad and criticizing DeWine for objecting.
Why It Matters
Political candidates should face tough questions about their records, decisions, and qualifications. That’s part of democracy.
But should someone’s childhood trauma become campaign ammunition?
Notice the pattern here. When a politician shows restraint, saying “this is a line we shouldn’t cross,” some of the most prominent responses are not agreement, but ridicule. Vance’s message to members of his own party was essentially: complaining about this makes you weak.
That reflects something bigger than one ad. Parts of today’s political culture celebrate a kind of dominance politics — the “alpha male” posture — where winning is the only value that matters, and anyone who pauses to ask whether something is decent gets labeled a whiner. Under that logic, empathy isn’t just unnecessary. It’s a liability.
That raises a question worth sitting with before Election Day: If compassion is now something political leaders can mock in their own allies, what does that tell us about what we’re rewarding — and what kind of leaders we’ll get next?
Political candidates should be judged on their character. But character isn’t revealed only by what candidates say about their opponents. It’s also revealed by the choices they make when deciding how to win.
What to Watch
Could the Iran war escalate after the midterms?
U.S. and Israeli officials are reportedly considering another round of strikes against Iran after November 3. Meanwhile, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz are pushing oil prices higher. Watch what happens after Election Day—and whether Americans feel the impact at the gas pump.
What do voters actually want from the next Congress?
A new AP-NORC poll found that roughly 8 in 10 registered voters want Congress to prioritize lowering the cost of living, while about 7 in 10 want ending the Iran war to be a top priority. Republicans and Democrats may disagree about solutions, but their biggest concerns have more in common than campaign rhetoric suggests.
Peace talks while missiles are falling?
Russia has agreed in principle to resume negotiations with Ukraine and the United States, but hours later, Russian missiles struck Kyiv and other Ukrainian communities. With winter approaching and Ukraine’s energy infrastructure under attack, watch whether the proposed talks lead to anything beyond another round of promises.
Sources & Further Reading
STORIES 1–3 · ELON MUSK, POLITICAL SPENDING & UKRAINE
- The Washington Post — Elon Musk leads the megadonors pumping $2.3 billion into midterm elections (October 16, 2026).
- Reuters — Rubio says Ukraine’s Starlink access is a decision for Musk, not the White House (October 21, 2026).
- Reuters — Trump says Musk restored Ukraine’s Starlink access (October 22, 2026).
STORY 4: AI STOCKS AND DATA CENTER BACKLASH
- Reuters (October 22, 2026) — Wall Street stocks fall amid concerns over AI spending.
- S&P Global (October 1, 2026) — Data center backlash shapes midterm ballots and campaigns across the United States.
- Brookings Institution (September 2026) — Why data centers are a top issue in the 2026 midterms.
STORY 5: OHIO’S RACE FOR GOVERNOR RAISES A QUESTION: HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?
- Associated Press — October 22, 2026 Trump backs Ramaswamy on ad featuring Amy Acton’s estranged mother Covers the advertisement, Acton’s history, and the differing reactions from Republican leaders.
- Axios — October 21, 2026 Ramaswamy doubles down on ad featuring rival’s mother
- CBS News — October 22, 2026 Trump says Ramaswamy’s controversial advertisement should stay up
No discussions yet
Be the first to join the discussion and share your thoughts with the community.