Three-quarters of all responses were machine-generated in failed attempt to stop bill from passing into law, research finds

AI bots flooded a government consultation with tens of thousands of fake responses in a failed attempt to stop the UK’s ban on disposable vapes.

Three-quarters of all the responses to the 2023 consultation on the tobacco and vapes bill were machine-generated, in what is thought to be the first coordinated attempt to use AI to derail health policymaking in the UK.

Discovery comes months after Utah county detectives confirmed that Bundy had killed another Utah girl that year

The notorious serial killer Ted Bundy has been found responsible, through DNA evidence, for the murder of a 17-year-old Utah girl who went missing in 1974 before her nude body was found days later, state authorities announced at a Tuesday news conference.

The breakthrough in the investigation of Melissa Ann Smith’s death comes months after Utah county detectives confirmed in April that Bundy had killed another Utah girl, 17-year-old Laura Ann Aime, in 1974.

• Apple's new iPhone Duo is inspiring viral internet memes.
• Social media is buzzing about cracked screens and doomscrolling potential.
• Here are some of the most creative memes about Apple's latest creation.

Apple's long-awaited iPhone Duo is here, and while a folding phone is nothing new, it's the company's first, and it has a waitlist a mile long.

However, Apple diehards with Duo already in hand are reporting issues with the folding screen, and some have posted about their buyer's remorse online.

The cracking screen

Early owners have reported cracks along the Duo's center fold, sometimes accompanied by a bright line of stuck pixels across one side of the inner display. Apple said the issue affects a "small number" of units and directed affected customers to AppleCare for replacements.

The reports have also generated crack-themed jokes and wallpapers online — though some widely shared images of damaged Duo screens have been altered or AI-generated.

One X account made a wallpaper for those who could not afford the Duo but would like to experience the crack.

In a statement to Business Insider, Apple said that the response to iPhone Duo from early users has been "incredibly positive."

"If users experience issues with their iPhone Duo display, they should contact AppleCare for a replacement," Apple said.

The crypto memes

The crypto world made a connection to the iPhone Duo when the official Crypto.com account posted earlier in October about how the folding phone would be perfect for traders.

The association soon became memes playing on the stereotype that crypto traders are delusional and unemployed.

The multi-screen design

Many believe that the iPhone Duo's multi-screen design will be hazardous to our already short attention span by allowing multiple activities at once.

While the Duo's 7.6-inch inner display supports two apps side by side, its 5.4-inch outer display can be used when the phone is closed.

That setup has also prompted jokes about what is known as a "performative male," referring to men publicly pretending to enjoy certain niche genres of books and music in order to attract women.

Another post, more of a real video than a meme, demonstrated the iPhone Duo's potential to exacerbate doomscrolling.

For anyone worried that one screen wasn't enough for your nightly scroll, Apple has a $1,999 solution.

From the complaint in Piker v. Jennings; of course, this is just Piker's side of the story—I expect we'll get Jennings' in a forthcoming motion to dismiss:

On August 11, 2026, Scott Jennings falsely told a nationwide podcast audience that Hasan Piker was "out there calling for Black voters to be lynched." He falsely told his listeners that Mr. Piker had a "plan of returning our country to lynchings." And then he falsely told his social media followers that Mr. Piker "says the USA should resume lynchings against black people."

All of Mr. Jennings' accusations are false. Mr. Piker has never advocated the lynching of Black Americans, or anyone else. He has never called for a return to lynchings. And he has never proposed anything remotely resembling the supposed plan that Mr. Jennings falsely attributed to him.

Mr. Jennings did not merely mischaracterize something Mr. Piker said. He took a false, fabricated, and manipulated video of Mr. Piker, added a made-up quotation that Mr. Piker never uttered, and then made accusations that went beyond even what the manipulated footage purported to show. Mr. Jennings presented those accusations as fact, telling his viewers to "[l]isten for yourself" about Mr. Piker, knowing that he was playing a falsified video of Mr. Piker for those viewers, and completely disregarding the truth of Mr. Piker's actual words.

The underlying footage came from a broadcast nearly two years earlier on Twitch, an online streaming service owned by Amazon. On October 29, 2024, Mr. Piker was reacting to a debate between two Black political commentators, one liberal and one conservative. When the conservative commentator blamed "woke DAs" for policies supposedly harming Black Americans, Mr. Piker mocked him by sarcastically portraying that comment as nostalgia for an era before the civil rights movement. Laughing, Mr. Piker said:

He said, "We need more Klansmen, okay? Can we go back to a better time when lynchings were happening? This is what I like as a Black man. Also, there's no real racism in America." My man said, "woke DAs," dude. What are you saying?

Mr. Piker was plainly ridiculing the commentator's position. He was not endorsing it. The debate video remained visible behind him. Mr. Piker introduced the remarks with "He said," laughed as he delivered them, and concluded by questioning the commentator's argument. His viewers understood the sarcasm. Some laughed along. Others expressly described his comments as hyperbole. Still others predicted that someone would eventually remove the context and circulate the resulting footage as though Mr. Piker had been speaking sincerely.

That is precisely what happened. In August 2026, a 42-second video began circulating on social media that combined fragments of three separate Twitch broadcasts. The portions taken from Mr. Piker's October 2024 stream had been cropped, shortened, and rearranged. The underlying debate was removed from view. So was the contemporaneous audience commentary.

The words "He said," which identified the object of Mr. Piker's ridicule, were omitted. Mr. Piker's laughter and subsequent explanation were also removed. The resulting video portrayed sarcastic criticism of another as though it were an expression of Mr. Piker's own beliefs.

On August 11, 2026, Mr. Jennings broadcast that false video on The Scott Jennings Show, misrepresenting the manipulated video as authentic. But Mr. Jennings did not stop at repeating someone else's misleading edit. He added his own caption to the video, presented as a direct quotation from Mr. Piker:

PIKER: "LET'S GO BACK TO A BETTER TIME WHEN LYNCHINGS WERE HAPPENING" …

Mr. Piker never said those words. The original broadcast does not contain that statement. Neither does the manipulated video that Mr. Jennings chose to air. Mr. Jennings converted a sarcastic question, expressly attributed to and directed toward someone else, into a patently false first-person statement of Mr. Piker's own supposed beliefs, and then relayed that false statement to his viewers.

Mr. Jennings then went even further. After warning Black listeners to pay particular attention, Mr. Jennings accused Mr. Piker of "calling for Black voters to be lynched" and referred to "the Piker plan of returning our country to lynchings." Later that day, Mr. Jennings published the same false accusation on social media, telling his followers that Mr. Piker believed the United States "should resume lynchings against black people."

These were not expressions of disagreement with Mr. Piker's politics. Nor were they rhetorical characterizations of an admittedly controversial commentator. They were factual assertions about what Mr. Piker had said and advocated in his work. Each statement was demonstrably false.

The distinction matters. Mr. Jennings was free to criticize Mr. Piker, to condemn his political positions, or to argue that his commentary was offensive. Mr. Jennings was also free to play Mr. Piker's actual words, and provide his own commentary on what Mr. Piker actually said. Mr. Jennings was not free to do what he did: knowingly attribute to Mr. Piker statements that Mr. Piker never made, and then present those invented statements as evidence that Mr. Piker supports the racially motivated murder of Black Americans….

The post Hasan Piker Sues Scott Jennings appeared first on Reason Magazine.

From a long opinion yesterday by Judge Eumi Lee (N.D. Cal.) in Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. v. U.S. Dep't of Defense:

On February 13, 2026, the United States Department of Defense ("Department") publicly designated Alibaba Group Holding Limited as a "Chinese military company" ("CMC"). On June 30, 2026, 10 U.S.C. § 4663 went into effect, barring the Department from contracting with any company who retained the same lobbyist as a CMC. Alibaba asserts that Section 4663 has caused lobbyists to withdraw from representing Alibaba for fear of losing other clients.

The court issued a preliminary injunction, concluding § 4663 likely violates the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause:

Alibaba is an e-commerce and cloud-computing company that provides products, technology, infrastructure, and services to consumers and businesses for civilian and commercial use. Alibaba provides U.S. companies and businesses with a platform to sell their products to consumers in China. Additionally, it provides commercial cloud services to companies, including U.S. companies, operating in China and other countries. Alibaba has developed open-source AI models, including Qwen, with a focus on "commercial applications that make it more efficient and secure for businesses to sell goods to consumers in China." Alibaba is publicly listed on both the New York Stock Exchange and Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

"Prior to being designated [a CMC], Alibaba had retained over two dozen lobbyists and multiple lobbying firms to represent its interests before Congress and the Executive Branch" [including] … "… the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Communication Commission [("FCC")], the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of the Treasury, and [other entities]" …. "They presented Alibaba's views on legislation, rules, regulations, executive orders, and other government policies of commercial interest to the company. Specifically, they advocated regarding export expansion, small business export promotion, technology policy, access to U.S. capital markets, e-commerce-related issues, consumer-protection laws, and intellectual property." …

The Court finds that First Amendment scrutiny applies because Section 4663 regulates speech. By restricting Alibaba's ability to retain lobbyists, Section 4663 functionally restricts its political speech. "Discussion of public issues" is "pure speech" that is at "the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment[.]" The First Amendment also protects "[t]he right to petition," that is, "the right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws[.]"Lobbying government officials is therefore an activity fully protected by the First Amendment. FTC v. Super. Ct. Trial Laws. Ass'n (1990) ("It is, of course, clear that the association's efforts to … lobby District officials to enact favorable legislation … were activities that were fully protected by the First Amendment.")….

Here, Section 4663 appears to be directed at defense contractors, but its consequences are on Alibaba's speech. "[A] government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly" by "coerc[ing] a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." NRA v. Vullo (2024)…. Section 4663's impact falls on the relationship between Alibaba and the third parties crucial to its speech rights. Thus, the Court finds that Section 4663 burdens Alibaba's speech….

Defendants observe that Alibaba is not completely banned from appearing before the federal government—it could hire more in-house lobbyists or find a firm that is willing to forgo defense contractor clients…. [But] Alibaba is unlikely to find a lobbyist willing to forgo any clients who might want to contract with the Department. {The statute applies to defense contractors who contract with "entities"—in other words, lobbying firms—who also contract with CMCs. Defense contractors would not risk their ability to enter into a contract with the federal government when there are plenty of capable lobbying firms available. The lobbying firm then must choose. One or more of its lobbyists can choose to represent Alibaba, but then the entire lobbying firm must forgo representing defense contractors. The only rational choice for a lobbying firm is to stop representing Alibaba.}

[Alibaba also] represents that it cannot hire the number of experienced in-house lobbyists needed to address the federal government for all its interests…. The reduction to Alibaba's speech is sufficient to demonstrate a colorable First Amendment claim….

The court then concluded that the law was subject to strict scrutiny:

"Content-based regulations are subject to the most exacting scrutiny because 'the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'" In examining a statute, courts must also examine "restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others." "Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content." Thus, identity-based regulations may "demand strict scrutiny when they reflect the Government's preference for the substance of what the favored speakers have to say (or aversion to what the disfavored speakers have to say)." …

{Section 4663 is not a content-based restriction…. Section 4663 operates based solely on whether a CMC is involved. What the CMC (or non-CMC) plans to say does not affect whether Section 4663 applies.} [But] Section 4663 is a speaker-based restriction on speech—it is only applicable if a CMC seeks to retain a lobbyist. As a speaker-based restriction on political speech, Section 4663 is subject to strict scrutiny.

Defendants assert that Section 4663 should be considered under intermediate scrutiny, because Alibaba's "differential treatment" is justified by its "special characteristic[ ]," namely the potential involvement of a foreign adversary. Defendants again rely on TikTok, where the Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny despite finding that the divestiture statute was a speaker-based restriction, because the differential treatment was due to a content-neutral reason, namely TikTok's susceptibility to foreign control.

While Section 4663 also involves a foreign adversary, TikTok is distinguishable because political speech was not at issue. Id. ("emphasiz[ing] the inherent narrowness" of its holding and observing that "[a] law targeting any other speaker would by necessity entail a distinct inquiry and separate considerations"). Here, Defendants provide no authority to suggest that differential treatment with respect to political speech may be considered under intermediate scrutiny. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) states the opposite: "Laws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,'" and "the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity." The Court thus applies strict scrutiny in determining whether Section 4663 violates the First Amendment.

{The Court recognizes that this is a close question. But for the context of political speech—specifically the ability and right to petition the government—Defendants' argument that intermediate scrutiny should apply would likely prevail, because Section 4663 is otherwise a content-neutral statute. As in TikTok, Section 4663 singles out a particular group of speakers, but not because of the content of their speech. Instead, the treatment is based on a particular characteristic of the speaker, i.e., their status as a CMC.} …

And the court held that the law failed strict scrutiny, because it was not narrowly tailored to the government interests in "(1) … prevent[ing] CMCs 'from accessing sensitive military information through their relationships with lobbyists,' and (2) … ensur[ing] that CMCs 'cannot subtly influence any of [the Department's] decisions related to national security by influencing a lobbyist'":

[T]he government cannot impose a restriction on speech based solely on "mere conjecture." Rather, it must "point to record evidence or legislative findings demonstrating the need to address a special problem."

Here, Defendants fail to meet their burden. Defendants provide only one exhibit in support of their opposition: the joint explanatory statement submitted as part of the legislative record for the Act. The statement provides an overview of Section 4663 and then "direct[s] the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than one year after the enactment of this Act, on the national security risks posed by consulting firms who simultaneously contract with the Department of Defense and the Chinese government or its proxies or affiliates."

Of note, the Comptroller General is directed to study consulting firms, not lobbyists. The statement does not express any findings by the Comptroller General or Congress about the risks posed by lobbyists retained by CMCs. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants were unable to confirm whether a report by the Comptroller General had been submitted to Congress by December 23, 2025, one year after the Act's enactment; nor did Defendants provide a copy of the report. Other than the statement, Defendants do not provide any evidence of the national security risks or other compelling government interests….

[Moreover, d]efendants do not offer any evidence demonstrating that alternative [and less speech-restrictive] means were contemplated, much less rejected for being insufficient…. Meanwhile, Alibaba submits evidence that less alternative restrictions may exist. With respect to CMCs, Nebraska has required lobbyists representing entities on the 1260H List to file an acknowledgment that they are representing a foreign adversary. The Supreme Court "has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on lobbyists" as a "less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech." Defendants present no reason why a disclosure requirement, like Nebraska's, would be inadequate for the federal government.

Instead, Defendants summarily conclude that Alibaba's proposed disclosure requirement would not suffice because "there would still be access and the potential for influence." This speculation is insufficient to support a restriction on the First Amendment….

Carter G. Phillips, Christopher A. Eiswerth, Jennifer J. Clark, and Sheila Anil Gogate Armbrust (Sidley Austin LLP) represent Alibaba.

The post Alibaba and the Forty Lobbyists, and the First Amendment appeared first on Reason Magazine.

German defense AI firm Helsing has unveiled Contra, an AI-run air defense system and two interceptor missiles designed to chase Russia’s jet-powered Geran drones, the company announced on 26 October. Officials pitch it as cheap, but it won’t reach the market this winter.

That leaves Ukraine on its own defenses as Russia shifts to jet drones. By early October, jet models made up about 40% of Russian drone launches, and Ukraine’s own interceptors for them won’t arrive in needed numbers before late November, Air Force Deputy Commander Yurii Cherevashenko said.

Two missiles, one AI brain

Contra is the command layer of air defense: it links radars and other sensors, tracks incoming drones and missiles, and assigns a weapon to each target, while people keep control over decisions, Helsing said. Besides the company’s own missiles, it can also use other firms’ interceptors, lasers, guns, or nets. AD-1 Inferno is jet-powered and designed to loiter, swarm, and re-engage targets, while AD-2 Ambush, a solid-fuel rocket, is designed to reach Mach 2.5, over twice the speed of sound, and a range of more than 20 km, the company said.

Inferno, with a 700 km/h speed and a 20-km range, would be the everyday shooter. Ambush would handle “leakers,” drones about to hit the ground, said Maxwell Adams, Helsing’s senior product director. Each shot should cost under $100,000, company officials said.

Built for the faster Gerans

Ukraine once downed 90% of Russia’s slower, propeller-driven Gerans, copies of Iran’s Shahed, Defense News reported. Russia has since fielded thousands of jet Geran-4s and Geran-5s flying at 400–700 km/h, and almost half now get through, Helsing co-founder and co-CEO Gundbert Scherf said.

Ukraine’s own nightly rates swing widely. On 28 September, President Zelenskyy put the shoot-down rate for jet drones at 57%. Overnight on 7 October, it exceeded 82%, National Security and Defense Council Secretary Ihor Klymenko said. Russian output of the two models has reached 4,000 a month, Helsing said, citing unspecified intelligence reports.

Explore further

German company introduces AI-powered HX-2 drone for Ukrainian military

Helsing has signed one Contra contract, Scherf said, but the system is still in testing, and he expects it on the market in the second half of 2027. Ukraine already uses Helsing’s HX-2 strike drones. Scherf said they should be integrated into a system like Contra.

Ciudad de Panamá, 27 oct (Prensa Latina) La persecución a defensores ambientales, la impunidad judicial y los daños a comunidades y ecosistemas centraron hoy nuevas denuncias ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), que sesiona en Panamá, contra empresas mineras canadienses que operan en América Latina.

The post Denuncian en Panamá abusos de mineras canadienses en América Latina first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Online hate is spilling into the real world, AFP warns

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett began her late-night appearance at the Senate estimates hearing noting “a heaviness that hangs across Australia” after the alleged attack on independent MP Helen Haines.

Lone actors are being motivated by a convergence of personal grievances, mental health vulnerabilities and ideological concerns …

What helped keep us safe in recent times, such as our geography, analogue systems and far away criminals, has been impacted by fully integrated technology, social media and artificial intelligence.

We hear about the devastating impacts of racism from communities every day. But many experiences go unreported or uncounted, and our systems often do not capture the full picture.

This is not about collecting more data to prove racism exists. We already know it does. It is about making inequality visible, holding institutions to account and giving communities greater agency over their data to drive real change.

• OpenAI said its models found that a commonly held computer science hypothesis was wrong.
• Hours later, Anthropic agreed.
• Here's how techies and mathematicians in the internet's nerdiest corners are responding.

Turns out, OpenAI might be really good at computers.

On Monday, the company said it punctured the Exponential Time Hypothesis, or ETH, the nearly 30-year-old belief in the computer science community that some logic problems get overwhelmingly time-consuming as they grow. Hours later, Anthropic released its own research refuting ETH.

OpenAI said it had asked a group of outside computer scientists to organize an open review of its claim. The researchers have highlighted that their involvement is not an endorsement.

If the AI labs' announcements hold, they would likely reopen the hunt for increasingly capable algorithms — something that computer scientists had largely assumed couldn't get much better.

The ultra-nerdy claim has been a huge topic of conversation across social media and in techie circles. Here's how some of the thought leaders have reacted to OpenAI's announcement:

Ryan Williams, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT

Williams, one of the three independent algorithm design experts who are researching OpenAI's claims, has not certified the company's results.

He wrote on X that, if OpenAI's claim turns out to be true, the fresh findings "should make every computer scientist put at least a little more weight on the possibility of P = NP," making the company closer to another potential $1 million Millennium Prize Problem.

In more practical terms, Williams said the claimed breakthrough could lead to "faster algorithms."

He has previously said that he doesn't believe in ETH.

Gary Marcus, emeritus professor at NYU

Marcus, a frequent AI skeptic, wrote that this could be "a big deal if correct," on X.

John D. Cook, Ph.D. and tech consultant in applied mathematics

In a blog post, Cook said OpenAI's claims — while impressive — didn't finally answer computer science's biggest open question.

"The status of P = NP is still unknown," he wrote. "While 3-SAT does not take exponential time, it still takes more than polynomial time as far as anyone knows."

Joshua Fonseca Rivera, AI Safety Research Fellow at Anthropic

Rivera wrote on X that OpenAI's fresh claim was a reminder that humans could have underestimated a computer's intelligence.

"The bitter lesson should make this unsurprising," he wrote. "I know this logically, but... wow, we really don't know anything."

Timothy Gowers, professeur titulaire at Collège de France and Fields Medal-winning mathematician

Gowers wrote a blunt take on X about the development: "Very surprising and consequential that it is false."

Dan Shipper, CEO at Every

Shipper, the AI-pilled chief executive at a tech startup, wrote on X what everyone else was thinking…

"I regret not getting a Ph.D. in frontier math," he said. "(Not that I ever considered getting one but still)."

• Amazon shifts AI focus to business impact, not just raw usage, in new developer guidelines.
• The company warns that AI metrics can create bad incentives, including “tokenmaxxing.”
• Managers are told to examine teams at both the highest and lowest levels of AI adoption.

Amazon just issued new guidelines for software engineers in the AI era: Prioritize business outcomes over raw usage.

Terk Terkowitz, Amazon's vice president and distinguished engineer, said in a memo published Tuesday that AI is changing software development more quickly and fundamentally than earlier shifts such as cloud computing. But engineers should be judged by their impact on customers and the business, he wrote, not simply how much they use AI.

"We all need to embrace this change and take the time to learn, or we risk being left behind," Terkowitz said.

AI coding tools and agents are upending the software industry and changing what it means to be a coder. Amazon calls this the "era of the Renaissance Developer," where human judgement and machine intelligence combine to create new products and services faster and more efficiently.

"This is a time of change for our industry, and a time of change for what it means to be a software engineer," Terkowitz wrote in the memo.

The updated guidelines reflect Amazon's growing effort to make AI adoption part of how it assesses engineers and engineering managers. The company has tracked measures including AI usage, token consumption, and lines of code internally, and used leaderboards to rank teams by some of those metrics.

But the memo warns that using such measures as targets can produce bad outcomes, including "tokenmaxxing" rather than better software or customer experiences.

"Using these metrics could, if used as a target instead of a measure, drive negative outcomes," Terkowitz wrote in the memo.

Amazon has been experimenting with ways to measure and encourage AI use across its engineering organization.

Earlier this year, the company was tracking engineers's use of internal AI tools and some teams used leaderboards tied to measures such as token consumption. The programs created friction among some employees, who worried that pressure to use AI could reward wasteful activity rather than productive work.

The new guidance offers Amazon's clearest public acknowledgment of that risk. Rather than lay out a detailed AI playbook that could quickly become obsolete, Amazon said its revised developer guidelines focus on long-term impact on customers and the business.

Still, the company said AI should be "at the center of software engineering practice" and urged engineers to incorporate the technology into their daily work.

Leaders are expected to use AI tools on production work themselves, understand where they help and where they fall short, and explain that judgment to their teams, according to the memo.

Terkowitz said Amazon has found that metrics such as token use, AI-tool adoption, and code reviews can correlate with the outcomes it values. But he said the measures must be used carefully. More token use can raise costs, while a focus on lines of code can create unnecessary complexity.

He also recommended that managers pay particular attention to teams at both ends of the AI adoption spectrum: those in the bottom 10%, to understand why they are not using AI effectively, and those in the top 10%, to determine whether heavier use is translating into faster delivery.

Terkowitz said Amazon's most AI-forward "frontier teams" have shown stronger productivity and delivery. He also said teams and individuals that are not adopting AI or increasing output metrics are falling behind.

But his memo left room for engineers whose work may not yet benefit from current AI tools. In those cases, he said, employees should document why and work toward a solution by sharing their findings with peers and managers.

"An engineer who can explain where AI does not yet help their work is demonstrating the judgement we are asking for," the memo said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

One morning in June, the head of export at Ukrainian drone company Stellarion found himself unexpectedly in need of a U-Haul outside the Detroit Metro Airport in Michigan.

Stellarion was set to test its drones in front of American soldiers at a competition organized by the Pentagon at Camp Grayling,

The vote for the 26th Knesset serves as a crucial referendum on the state’s institutions, economy, and military strategy.

The legislative elections for the 26th Knesset, the legislative power, take place at a critical political crossroads for Israel. Scheduled as the first parliamentary contest since the outbreak of hostilities against Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023, these elections serve as a national referendum on the governance model of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

RELATED:
Israel Opens Polls for First General Election Since the Gaza Genocide

The outgoing 25th Knesset became the first Israeli legislature since 1988 to complete its full four-year term without early dissolution, surviving despite severe domestic turmoil, mass protests over judicial reforms, and persistent coalition instability.

However, the upcoming vote occurs under international scrutiny and severe domestic polarization. Official data from the Israeli Central Elections Committee shows the number of ballots needed across the country to fill all 120 seats in parliament.

Political analysts note that the campaign reflects deep fractures within Israeli society regarding military strategy, economic priorities, and the future shape of the state’s institutional structure.

Social and Geopolitical Context of the 2026 Elections

The socio-political environment surrounding the current electoral moment is marked by the prolonged attacks on Gaza and wider regional escalations involving Lebanon and Iran.

These conflicts have heavily strained the Israeli economy, accelerated militarization across public life, and deepened existing social divides.

Economic pressures, driven by soaring military expenditures and disruptions across key industrial sectors due to a labor crisis resulting from the movement of Palestinians, the trade blockade, and the brain drain, have intensified Israeli public debate concerning state budgets and resource allocation.

Simultaneously, domestic divisions have intensified around long-standing structural issues, most notably the military conscription exemptions granted to the ultra-Orthodox Haredi population, generating coalition crises and widespread friction between secular citizens and religious factions.

On the diplomatic front, the state faces unprecedented international isolation, underscored by ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice and arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, former Israeli Defense Minister, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Despite mounting global pressure and civil society accountability campaigns, the political establishment continues to rely heavily on strategic diplomatic and military backing from Western allies, maintaining an insular focus on security doctrines as voters head to the polls.

The Electoral System: Proportional Representation and Coalition Dynamics

Israel uses a closed-list nationwide proportional representation system to elect the 120 members of the Knesset. The entire country forms a single electoral district.

Voters select a political party slate rather than individual constituency representatives. To gain representation in parliament, a party list must clear an electoral threshold of 3.25 percent of the total valid votes.

Because no political party in Israeli history has ever won an absolute majority of 61 seats on its own, every administration requires a multi-party governing coalition.

Following the Central Elections Committee, official vote tallies determine seat allocations using the d’Hondt method, which allocates parliamentary seats among the various candidate lists based on the votes received.

Parties frequently enter formal surplus vote-sharing agreements before election day to capture remaining unallocated seats.

Once results are certified, the President of Israel holds consultations with elected party leaders before tasking a chosen candidate, typically the head of the largest faction or coalition bloc, with forming a government within a 28-day timeframe.

This framework gives smaller sectoral and single-issue parties significant leverage during post-election negotiations. Far-right, religious, and nationalist slates often demand key ministerial posts, policy concessions, or budget allocations in exchange for their critical coalition votes.

Political analysts note that institutional features of the system, combined with state policies, impact electoral participation among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Electoral threshold adjustments and legal challenges against Arab-led party slates continuously shape voter turnout in Palestinian municipalities.

While Palestinian citizens account for roughly 20 percent of the population, their representative parties face ongoing systemic exclusion from executive coalition agreements, restricting their influence within the parliamentary framework.

Key Candidates and Political Factions

The candidate field for the 26th Knesset reflects a fragmented political landscape divided into distinct ideological camps, which we will detail:

The Right-Wing and Religious Coalition

• Likud: Led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ruling party centers its platform on national defense, state security, and maintaining its long-standing parliamentary dominance.

• Otzma Yehudit: Headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, this far-right faction advocates for expanded settlements, strict law-and-order policies, and hardline security measures.

• Religious Zionist Party–Zehut: Led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich alongside Moshe Feiglin, this nationalist alliance focuses on West Bank administration, land policies, and conservative social programs.

• Ultra-Orthodox Parties: Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), led by Yitzhak Goldknopf, prioritize state funding for religious institutions and maintaining draft exemptions for Haredi seminary students.

The Opposition Alliances

• Together (Beyachad): A political alliance formed by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. The joint platform focuses on institutional stability, economic reform, and governance changes.

• Yashar: A new political movement launched by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. The party presents a technocratic platform focused on national security, military management, and state administration.

• Yisrael Beiteinu: Headed by Avigdor Lieberman, this right-wing secular nationalist party focuses on mandatory military conscription for all demographic groups and civic policy reforms.

• The Democrats: Formed through the merger of the Labor and Meretz parties under the leadership of former IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan, this unified center-left party emphasizes judicial independence and social-democratic domestic policies.

Arab-Majority Parties

• Joint List: Re-established by Hadash, Ta’al, and Balad under the leadership of Yousef Jabareen, the alliance campaigns on civil rights equality, an end to house demolitions, legal recognition for unrecognized Bedouin villages, and opposition to military occupations.

• United Arab List (Ra’am): Led by Mansour Abbas, this pragmatic Islamist faction focuses on securing municipal development funds, infrastructure investments, and crime-reduction programs for Arab communities.

Netanyahu: Governance Record, Systemic Corruption, and Legal Jeopardy

Benjamin Netanyahu, with more than 15 years, is the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel. Netanyahu governance has consistently centered on maintaining military administration over occupied Palestinian territories, expanding West Bank settlements, and privatizing state assets.

Netanyahu administrations restructured national tax policies, deregulated key economic sectors, and prioritized defense spending over social welfare initiatives. Netanyahu’s political trajectory remains deeply entwined with ongoing legal proceedings across both domestic and international courts. In domestic tribunals, he faces active criminal charges across three separate indictments known as Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000.

– Case 1000 involves charges of fraud and breach of trust regarding allegations that he received expensive gifts from wealthy business figures in exchange for political favors.

– Case 2000 includes fraud and breach of trust charges related to negotiations with media publishers to secure favorable press coverage in return for legislation restricting competing news outlets.

– Case 4000 contains the most severe charges, bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, alleging that Netanyahu granted regulatory concessions to telecom giant Bezeq in exchange for positive coverage on the Walla news platform.

Netanyahu consistently denies all allegations, maintaining that the investigations represent a politically motivated campaign by law enforcement authorities. In early 2023, his government introduced a major judicial reform initiative designed to restructure judicial appointments and limit Supreme Court oversight over executive decisions.

Opposition figures and legal experts argued that these proposals aimed to undermine judicial independence and stall his ongoing trial, prompting widespread domestic protests and deep institutional instability.

On the international stage, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, determining that reasonable grounds exist to hold him criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The court cited specific charges, including the deliberate use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentional attacks directed against civilian populations.

Although the Israeli government rejects the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the warrants impose severe diplomatic constraints and travel limitations on Netanyahu across states parties to the Rome Statute.

Post-Election Scenarios and Potential Outcomes

The final distribution of seats in the 120-member Knesset will determine whether the incumbent coalition or opposition alliances secure the 61-seat majority required to govern.

If the right-wing and religious coalition retains power under Netanyahu’s leadership, the administration is expected to immediately revive paused judicial reform packages to restructure judicial selection processes and restrict legal oversight of executive actions.

Under this outcome, state policy would focus on expanding West Bank settlement infrastructure, maintaining long-term military control over Gaza, and preserving military conscription exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox population to maintain internal coalition stability.

Alternatively, if an opposition alliance formed by figures such as Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, or Yair Lapid captures a parliamentary majority, executive authority would shift toward institutional stabilization. An opposition-led government would likely halt proposed judicial overhauls, reinstate traditional oversight mechanisms, and launch official state inquiries into military and intelligence failures.

Regarding military service, an opposition government would attempt to implement universal conscription policies that include Haredi citizens, a move likely to provoke significant resistance from religious sectors.

Striped of executive protections, Netanyahu’s domestic criminal trials would proceed without executive delays, while international legal pressures stemming from International Criminal Court warrants would remain active.

In the event that neither political bloc achieves a clear 61-seat threshold, the Knesset would enter a state of severe parliamentary deadlock. Under Israeli electoral law, Netanyahu would remain in power as caretaker Prime Minister while political factions negotiate prospective coalition agreements or initiate procedures for new legislative elections, extending the prevailing political uncertainty.

Sources: TeleSUR – Al Jazeera – Al Mayadeen – Press Tv – Anadolu Agency – TRT World – RT – The Times of Israel – Reporteros Sin Fronteras – BBC – DW – EFE – AP News – AFP