Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both progressive ‘Squad’ members, lashed out at President Donald Trump on Saturday in response to his decision to strike Iran. 

‘Trump has launched an illegal regime change war,’ Omar posted on X. ‘As someone who has survived the horrors of war, I know military strikes will not make us safer; they will inflame tensions and push the region further into chaos.’

Omar, who fled Somalia as a refugee as a young child, added, ‘When we abandon diplomacy, we choose destruction.’

Tlaib reacted on social media to a clip of Trump acknowledging that there may be American casualties in this attack. 

‘He doesn’t care about our loved ones in the military,’ Tlaib posted on X in a message that was reposted by Omar. ‘He doesn’t care about the fact that Americans don’t want this war.’

‘He doesn’t care about the Iranian people. He is corrupted. Don’t fall for the lies.’

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York also slammed President Donald Trump for abandoning diplomacy in favor of launching an attack against Iran, predicting the outcome will be ‘catastrophic.’

‘The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,’ Ocasio-Cortez said.

‘Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead. President Trump flippantly acknowledged the possibility of American casualties, stating ‘that often happens in war,’’ she continued. ‘Mr. President: this was not an inevitability. This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, another progressive House member associated with the informal ‘Squad’ group, called Trump’s actions an ‘illegal war’ in a post on X.

‘Yet again, an American president is sending other people’s kids to risk their lives in a senseless regime change war,’ Casar said. 

The U.S. and Israel launched the joint attack just after 9 a.m. local time in what the Pentagon has dubbed ‘Operation Epic Fury.’

In video remarks posted to Truth Social, Trump addressed the Iranian people directly and told them to ‘seize control of [their] destiny.’

‘The hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,’ Trump said. ‘This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No President was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a President who is giving you what you want.’

While Trump focused some of his message on empowering the people of Iran, he stated that the intent of the operation is to ‘defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,’ which he described as ‘vicious’ and ‘very hard, terrible people.’

Trump also said that while there may be American casualties as a result, the mission is ‘noble’ as it is aimed at stopping a ‘wicked, radical dictatorship’ from threatening American national security interests and destabilizing the Middle East.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report

Related Article

Fetterman praises Operation Epic Fury: Trump is ‘willing to do what’s right’

The first missile in the U.S. arsenal used against Iranian targets in Saturday’s pre-dawn strike was the Tomahawk, a long-range cruise missile launched from Navy ships and submarines.

About half the length of a standard telephone pole, the Tomahawk flies at the speed of a commercial airliner and can carry a 1,000-pound warhead about the distance from Washington, D.C., to Miami.

Fired from destroyers or submarines positioned hundreds of miles away, the missiles allow a president to respond rapidly to a crisis without sending pilots into contested airspace or deploying ground forces. 

The Tomahawk has become a go-to option for limited military action because it offers precision and flexibility while keeping the U.S. footprint small. The missiles can hit fixed targets with high accuracy, reducing the risk of broader escalation. 

Presidents of both parties have used Tomahawks in the opening hours of military operations, from strikes in Iraq in the 1990s to more recent operations in Syria and elsewhere. 

Defense officials and military analysts say the weapon’s long range, reliability and relatively low risk to American personnel make it an attractive first strike option when the White House wants to send a message quickly but stop short of a wider war.

That combination of speed, distance and precision has kept the Tomahawk at the center of U.S. military planning for decades.

Manufactured by defense titan Raytheon — now RTX — the Tomahawk has been a mainstay of the Navy’s arsenal since the 1980s. It was first used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War and has since become a go-to option for presidents seeking to strike from long range without putting U.S. service members in harm’s way.

‘Year in and year out, administration in and administration out, it’s the long-range land attack cruise missile that presidents reach for first in a crisis,’ Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fox News Digital.

But heavy use has taken a toll. ‘We’ve been using them far more frequently than we’ve been producing them,’ Karako said.

Prior to Saturday’s operation, the missile was used in June 2025 during a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Overall, the Tomahawk has been deployed more than 2,350 times.

At roughly $1.4 million apiece, the Tomahawk missile has an intermediate range of 800 to 1,553 miles and can be launched from more than 140 U.S. Navy ships and submarines. 

The Tomahawk strike was just one piece of a broader U.S. military posture in the region.

Ahead of the strikes, the U.S. military amassed what Trump previously called an ‘armada’ in Iran’s backyard. Mapped out across the Persian Gulf and beyond, the deployment tells its own story, one of calculated pressure backed by credible capability.

The deployment coincided with indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s disputed nuclear program. Trump has warned that the regime must fully dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or face consequences.

At the center of the U.S. presence are two aircraft carrier strike groups — the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford — each supported by guided-missile destroyers and cruisers and capable of sustained air and missile operations.

More than a dozen additional U.S. warships are also operating in the region in support roles, according to defense officials.

It was not immediately clear how or when Tehran might respond, though Iranian leaders have previously warned of retaliation in the event of direct U.S. military involvement.

Related Article

Israel targets Iran’s supreme leader in sweeping strikes as US joins ‘Operation Epic Fury’

As U.S. and Israeli forces strike deep inside Iran — reportedly targeting senior regime officials including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian — the question of who would lead Iran if the Islamic Republic collapses is no longer theoretical.

Iran has retaliated with missile barrages against U.S. positions across the Middle East, and while Iranian state media says top leaders remain alive and have been moved to secure locations, the direct targeting of political and military leadership marks a dramatic escalation.

Yet despite the intensity of the moment, regional analysts say there is no obvious successor poised to take control of the country.

The real power center: security forces

Experts consistently point to one determining factor: whether Iran’s coercive institutions — particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — fracture or consolidate.

If the IRGC remains cohesive, the most likely outcome is not democratic transition but a harder, more openly security-dominated system. A clerical reshuffle or military-led consolidation could preserve much of the existing power structure even if key figures are removed.

If, however, segments of the IRGC or regular armed forces defect or splinter under pressure from war and internal unrest, a political opening could emerge.

At this stage, there is no confirmed evidence of widespread security defections.

Reza Pahlavi: visible but long in exile

One of the most prominent opposition figures abroad is Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last shah. He has lived outside Iran since the 1979 revolution and has spent decades advocating for a secular, democratic system.

In a recent statement, Pahlavi called the U.S. strikes a ‘humanitarian intervention’ and urged Iran’s military and security forces to abandon the clerical regime. He declared that the Islamic Republic is ‘collapsing’ and called on Iranians to prepare to return to the streets at the appropriate time.

But while Pahlavi has name recognition and support among parts of the diaspora, his actual base of support inside Iran is difficult to measure. He has not lived in the country for more than four decades, and many Iranians remain divided over the legacy of the monarchy.

Analysts note that symbolic visibility — including chants heard during past protests — does not necessarily translate into the organizational infrastructure needed to govern a country of nearly 90 million people.

Maryam Rajavi and the NCRI: organized but controversial

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has taken a different approach. Her organization announced a provisional government framework aimed at transferring sovereignty to the Iranian people and establishing a democratic republic based on her longstanding ten-point plan.

In a subsequent message, Rajavi called on ‘patriotic personnel in the armed forces’ to stand with the Iranian people and urged regime forces to ‘lay down their arms and surrender.’ She also rejected both clerical rule and what she described as ‘monarchical fascism,’ an apparent reference to restorationist movements linked to the former royal family.

The plan calls for dissolving the IRGC and other security institutions, separating religion from the state, abolishing the death penalty, guaranteeing gender equality and holding elections for a constituent assembly.

The NCRI presents itself as a ready governing alternative.

But the group — closely associated with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — remains deeply controversial. Its history of armed struggle and years spent in exile have led many analysts to question the depth of its support inside Iran, particularly among younger generations.

While some Western political figures have expressed backing over the years, domestic legitimacy remains uncertain.

No clear heir apparent

Despite bold statements from opposition figures, experts caution that Iran’s future leadership is more likely to be shaped inside military barracks and security compounds than in exile press conferences.

Four decades of repression have hollowed out internal political alternatives. No widely recognized civilian leader inside Iran has emerged with cross-factional legitimacy.

If the regime’s leadership were to fall quickly, the immediate struggle would likely be among security elites — not between rival exile figures.

For now, analysts say, Iran has competing visions but no consensus successor. Whether the country transitions toward a new political system, hardens into military rule or experiences prolonged instability will depend less on declarations abroad and more on whether the regime’s core power structures fracture from within.

Related Article

Trump tells Iranians the ‘hour of your freedom is at hand’ as US-Israel launch strikes against Iran

In a sweeping pre-dawn bombing campaign across Iran, Israeli forces targeted sites linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a senior Israeli official confirmed to Fox News. The official said Iran’s president was also targeted as part of the joint U.S. operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury.

Reuters reported that Khamenei was not in Tehran during the strikes and was instead transferred to a secure location. 

President Donald Trump described the ‘massive and ongoing’ operation as the opening phase of a campaign that he said would devastate Iran’s military, dismantle its nuclear program and ultimately bring about regime change. 

‘It will be yours to take,’ Trump said in a video statement addressing the Iranian public.

Hours later, Tehran signaled it would not back down, saying it would defend itself against any attack.

‘This will be probably your only chance for generations,’ he added. Officials in Tehran said the country would defend itself against any attack.

Ahead of the strikes, the U.S. military amassed what Trump previously called an ‘armada’ in Iran’s backyard. Mapped out across the Persian Gulf and beyond, the deployment tells its own story, one of calculated pressure backed by credible capability.

The buildup coincided with indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s disputed nuclear program. Trump has warned that the regime must fully dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or face consequences. 

At the heart of America’s force projection are the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier strike groups — dual mobile fortresses at sea, guarded by destroyers and equipped to unleash precision strikes at a moment’s notice. 

More than a dozen other U.S. warships are also in the region to support.

For Iran, it means U.S. forces are not concentrated in a single vulnerable location — they are distributed, layered and positioned to operate from multiple directions at once. 

It was not immediately clear how or when Iran might respond. But with senior leaders targeted and U.S. naval assets positioned across the region, the latest exchange marks one of the most volatile moments in the decades-long standoff between Israel, Iran and the United States.

Related Article

Trump tells Iranians the ‘hour of your freedom is at hand’ as US-Israel launch strikes against Iran

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers are on the cusp of working without pay, and there is no backup plan in place to ensure they don’t miss a check.

During the longest government shutdown in history last year, the White House was able to shift around funding from the GOP’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ to ensure that military service members were paid. But TSA workers won’t get the same treatment.

Over 60,000 TSA workers are set to receive partial paychecks this week for the work they did before funding expired earlier this month. They won’t get another paycheck until Congress can land on a deal to fund the agency.

And the likelihood of that wrapping sooner rather than later is low.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that if the Trump administration could ‘figure out a way to pay government employees, absolutely.’

‘I mean, these are people who have jobs and have commitments and have families,’ Thune said. ‘And, you know, it’s going to be really unfortunate if we get to a point where I hope we don’t, where people aren’t getting paid because the Democrats continue to insist on changes to things that are just not feasible or tenable.’

But a White House official told Fox News Digital in a statement that, like the 43-day shutdown, the Trump administration would be able to transfer funding ‘to cover certain employees at DHS that were funded by the bill — namely law enforcement and active-duty military such as USCG.’

‘TSA has not been part of that, as they have a different funding stream from these other agencies,’ the official said.

Republicans believe that a key difference maker in the shutdown could be longer lines at airports and flight cancellations start to stack up as workers go without pay and take time off. A similar scenario played out during the previous shutdown, when cancellations compounded day after day.

‘When people start missing paychecks, and you start having disruptions in travel and that sort of thing, it’s going to get more and more painful,’ Thune said. ‘So it’d be nice to fix this before and to avoid all that, but we’ve got to have a partner that actually wants to make a deal.’

The White House and Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have been at odds over finding a compromise deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with hopes for a quick resolution to the ongoing shutdown quickly fading this week.

Both sides have rejected back-and-forth offers over the last two weeks. Senate Democrats argued that, for now, whether the agency would be reopened and TSA workers get paid was in the White House and Republicans’ hands.

Senate Democrats portrayed negotiations as having totally flatlined and put the onus of further conversations on the Trump administration.

‘We told them what our priorities were, they answered with a very, very weak, limited response,’ Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. ‘And we said, ‘No, this is what our requests were. We made a few changes,’ nothing back.’

When asked if she believed the White House was negotiating in good faith, Murray said, ‘Not yet.’

But Senate Republicans said that talks were happening on the side among members.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., hoped that she could convince enough Senate Democrats to come around and ensure that TSA agents, and others, wouldn’t go without pay for the foreseeable future.

‘I am working on talking to people,’ Britt said.

Related Article

Agency that nabbed ‘El Chapo,’ ‘Diddy’ threatened as Democrats’ DHS shutdown drags on

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called ‘aggression’ against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had ‘suppressed’ Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as ‘ineffective,’ though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change

As one of Israel’s staunchest defenders from the left, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., full-throatedly endorsed President Donald Trump’s attacks on Iran as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reacted Saturday morning.

‘President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region,’ Fetterman wrote on X. ‘God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel.’

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of Congress’ biggest backers of bold military action, is hailing President Donald Trump as a ‘man of peace,’ and ‘evil’s worst nightmare.’

‘As I watch and monitor this historic operation, I’m in awe of President Trump’s determination to be a man of peace but at the end of the day, evil’s worst nightmare,’ Graham wrote Saturday morning on X in a string of posts. ‘Well done, Mr. President.’

Trump’s U.S. military armada in the Middle East, working in concert with Israel, is targeting military targets and ballistic missile sites that pose an ‘imminent threat,’ a U.S. official told Fox News Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin. 

The U.S. military is not targeting Iran’s leadership, but Israel is, the official added.

Strikes hit the compound home of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, in downtown Tehran on Saturday morning.

And Trump issued a video statement on social media, urging Iranian people to get out of the way for now, but ‘when we are finished, take over your government; It will be yours to take.’

‘God bless @POTUS for planning and now executing Operation Epic Fury, making America more safe and eventually more prosperous,’ Graham added. ‘I seek God’s protection for all under President Trump’s command, as well as our allies in Israel.

‘My mind is racing with the thought that the murderous ayatollah’s regime in Iran will soon be no more.

While reports of explosions happened hours earlier, Graham posted his first support for the actions after 3 a.m. ET, calling the ‘operation is necessary and long justified.’

‘The biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years is upon us,’ Graham added in his second post on X. ‘The likelihood of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel getting back on track is exceedingly high – a subject I brought up last week to the key players in the region who concurred if the ayatollah goes down, historic peace advances.’

As the attacks were under way and battle damage assessments were yet to come, Graham delivered his prayers to the troops undertaking the operation.

‘As to the men and women participating in this operation for our country and Israel, may God bless you and keep you safe,’ he wrote. ‘If you are injured or fall, I believe with all my heart that your sacrifice makes your country and the world a better and safer place. This moment is why you chose to serve.

‘This operation has been well-planned. It will be violent, extensive and I believe, at the end of the day, successful. Again the demise of the ayatollah’s regime with American blood on its hands is necessary and more than justified.’

And, one of Trump’s long-time Republican critics, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., also posted on X, noting Trump has not sought congressional approval – although there was a briefing held with the Gang of Eight earlier this week.

‘Acts of war unauthorized by Congress,’ Massie wrote on X.

Senate Armed Forces Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., praised the ‘decisive action’ against ‘the world’s leading proliferator of terrorism.’

‘This is a pivotal and necessary operation to protect Americans and American interests,’ Wicker wrote in a statement. ‘The president has stated the operation’s goals clearly: thwart permanently the ayatollahs’ desire to create a nuclear weapon, degrade their ballistic missile force and their production capacity, and destroy their naval and terrorism capabilities.

‘These are the hardest decisions that face any American commander-in-chief, and I appreciate that President Trump and his team conducted a comprehensive strategy using all tools of national power and a well-orchestrated military planning process.’

The time to strike was now, according to Wicker.

‘The Iranian regime has never been weaker,’ he added. ‘Without the use of military force against them, Iran’s ayatollahs would simply continue to grow their ability to threaten Americans and our interests, working in concert with the Chinese Communist Party, the Russian dictator Putin, North Korea, and other terrorist allies. 

‘The ayatollahs have mortgaged the economic future of ordinary Iranians to engage in their obsessive and apocalyptic vision.   

Most importantly, I commend the brave men and women of our armed forces, who continue to demonstrate a level of operational proficiency unrivaled the world over. That fact will be evident in the coming days. Thanks to them, Americans are safer – not just today, but for generations to come.’

Related Article

Fetterman breaks with Democrats to back Trump taking military action in Iran if necessary

When you open a chatbot, stream a show or back up photos to the cloud, you are tapping into a vast network of data centers. These facilities power artificial intelligence, search engines and online services we use every day. Now there is a growing debate over who should pay for the electricity those data centers consume.

During President Trump’s State of the Union address this week, he introduced a new initiative called the ‘ratepayer protection pledge’ to shift AI-driven electricity costs away from consumers. The core idea is simple. 

Tech companies that run energy-intensive AI data centers should cover the cost of the extra electricity they require rather than passing those costs on to everyday customers through higher utility rates.

It sounds simple. The hard part is what happens next.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Why AI is driving a surge in electricity demand

AI systems require enormous computing power. That computing power requires enormous electricity. Today’s data centers can consume as much power as a small city. As AI tools expand across business, healthcare, finance and consumer apps, energy demand has risen sharply in certain regions.

Utilities have warned that the current grid in many parts of the country was not built for this level of concentrated demand. Upgrading substations, transmission lines and generation capacity costs money. Traditionally, those costs can influence rates paid by homes and small businesses. That is where the pledge comes in.

What the ratepayer protection pledge is designed to do

Under the ratepayer protection pledge, large technology companies would:

• Cover the full cost of additional electricity tied to their data centers
• Build their own on-site power generation to reduce strain on the public grid

Supporters say this approach separates residential energy costs from large-scale AI expansion. In other words, your household bill should not rise simply because a new AI data center opens nearby. So far, Anthropic is the clearest public backer. CyberGuy reached out to Anthropic for a comment on its role in the pledge. A company spokesperson referred us to a tweet from Anthropic Head of External Affairs Sarah Heck.

‘American families shouldn’t pick up the tab for AI,’ Heck wrote in a post on X. ‘In support of the White House ratepayer protection pledge, Anthropic has committed to covering 100% of electricity price increases that consumers face from our data centers.’

That makes Anthropic one of the first major AI companies to publicly state it will absorb consumer electricity price increases tied to its data center operations. Other major firms may be close behind. The White House reportedly plans to host Microsoft, Meta and Anthropic in early March to discuss formalizing a broader deal, though attendance and final terms have not been confirmed publicly.

Microsoft also expressed support for the initiative. 

‘The ratepayer protection pledge is an important step,’ Brad Smith, Microsoft vice chair and president, said in a statement to CyberGuy. ‘We appreciate the administration’s work to ensure that data centers don’t contribute to higher electricity prices for consumers.’  

Industry groups also point to companies such as Google and utilities including Duke Energy and Georgia Power as making consumer-focused commitments tied to data center growth. However, enforcement mechanisms and long-term regulatory details remain unclear.

How this could change the economics of AI

AI infrastructure is already one of the most expensive technology buildouts in history. Companies are investing billions in chips, servers and real estate. If firms must also finance dedicated power plants or pay premium rates for grid upgrades, the cost of running AI systems increases further. That could lead to:

• Slower expansion in some markets
• Greater investment in renewable energy and storage
• More partnerships between tech firms and utilities

Energy strategy may become just as important as computing strategy. For consumers, this shift signals that electricity is now a central part of the AI conversation. AI is no longer only about software. It is also about infrastructure.

The bigger consumer tech picture

AI is becoming embedded in smartphones, search engines, office software and home devices. As adoption grows, so does the hidden infrastructure supporting it. Energy is now part of the conversation around everyday technology. Every AI-generated image, voice command or cloud backup depends on a power-hungry network of servers.

By asking companies to account more directly for their electricity use, policymakers are acknowledging a new reality. The digital world runs on very physical resources. For you, that shift could mean more transparency. It also raises new questions about sustainability, local impact and long-term costs.

What this means for you

If you are a homeowner or renter, the practical question is simple. Will this protect my electric bill? In theory, separating data center energy costs from residential rates could reduce the risk of price spikes tied to AI growth. If companies fund their own generation or grid upgrades, utilities may have less reason to spread those costs among all customers.

That said, utility pricing is complex. It depends on state regulators, long-term planning and local energy markets.

Here is what you can watch for in your area:

• New data center construction announcements
• Utility filings that mention large commercial load growth
• Public service commission decisions on rate adjustments

Even if you rarely use AI tools, your community could feel the effects of a nearby data center. The pledge is intended to keep those large-scale power demands from showing up in your monthly bill.

Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com.

Kurt’s key takeaways

The ratepayer protection pledge highlights an important turning point. AI is no longer only about innovation and speed. It is also about energy and accountability. If tech companies truly absorb the cost of their expanding power needs, households may avoid some of the financial strain tied to rapid AI growth. If not, utility bills could become an unexpected front line in the AI era.

As AI tools become part of daily life, how much extra power are you willing to support to keep them running? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

Related Article

Scoop: Trump brings Big Tech to White House to curb power costs amid AI boom

Frigid negotiations between the White House and Senate Democrats appear to be thawing, with the Trump administration submitting what it calls a ‘serious’ offer to reopen the government.

‘Yesterday, the White House made another serious counteroffer,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital. ‘Democrats need to make a move to end the shutdown before more Americans are harmed by a lack of funding for critical services like disaster relief.’

It’s the second offer from the White House in an ongoing back-and-forth that has left the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without funding for two weeks. 

With lawmakers away from Washington, D.C., for the weekend, the shutdown will stretch into a third week.

The latest development comes after a week of stalled negotiations between Senate Democrats and the administration, along with concerns that an off-ramp from the shutdown remained out of reach.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., both acknowledged receiving the offer in a joint statement Friday.

‘We have received the White House’s counteroffer and are reviewing it closely. Democrats remain committed to keep fighting for real reforms to rein in ICE and stop the violence,’ they said. 

Congressional Democrats have spent much of the week accusing the White House of not taking the negotiations seriously, while Republicans contend their counterparts are asking for too much.

Schumer and Senate Democrats earlier this week blocked another attempt by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Republicans to fund DHS using the original compromise funding bill.

‘It seems like the Democrats concluded this is maybe good politics for them. It’s not for the people whose lives are affected on a daily basis,’ Thune said earlier this week. ‘So, we’ll keep pressing to try and get folks to the table. But I think the White House — you know — they continue to exchange paper and trade paper and all that, and hopefully they’ll find a sweet spot.’

Democrats want stringent reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including requiring agents to obtain judicial warrants and identify themselves during enforcement actions, changes Republicans and the administration say are red lines.

Democrats argue the White House has not shown the urgency they would have expected, given that an agency central to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda has been shuttered for nearly three weeks.

‘They haven’t indicated that they’re concerned about the closure of DHS,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘They’ve been slow to come back on the proposals that the Democrats have made.

‘And no one has ever explained why there should be only one police force in the entire country that should not have to follow the same kind of rules as everyone else.’

Related Article

Agency that nabbed ‘El Chapo,’ ‘Diddy’ threatened as Democrats’ DHS shutdown drags on

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she ‘has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.’

‘That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,’ Rubio added.

‘I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an ‘interactive dialogue,’ an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

‘I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,’ Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

‘It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.’

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the atrocities committed by Hamas Oct. 7, 2023.

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as ‘derogatory, insulting and inflammatory’ and said that they were ‘not acceptable.’

‘The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,’ Suryodipuro said.

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

‘Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,’ Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately ‘responsible for the content of their statement.’

‘The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,’ Sim said.

‘As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.’

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, ‘The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,’ and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

‘Sorry, I have to interrupt,’ Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the ‘language’ used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely. 

Lauber reiterated that ‘the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,’ adding that it ‘exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.’

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was ‘stage-managed,’ as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Related Article

UN chief blasted as ‘abjectly tone-deaf’ over message to Iran marking revolution anniversary