The briefing for Tuesday, September 15.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Trump's bid to restrict mail-in ballots before November's midterm elections, upholding a lower court order that had blocked new U.S. Postal Service rules from taking effect. The decision means states can continue sending out mail ballots under their existing processes, with voting already underway in several states. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented from the brief order.

The case stemmed from a March executive order in which Trump directed USPS to add barcodes to ballot envelopes and require states to submit voter lists to a new online portal, with the agency empowered to refuse delivery to noncompliant states. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C. sued, arguing the move infringed on states' constitutional authority over elections. Election officials and the postal workers' union warned there was no way to implement the overhaul in time, especially in the eight states that vote almost entirely by mail.

The ruling was not a full resolution of the legal fight. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while agreeing the rules shouldn't apply to this year's midterms, suggested he might side with the administration if the case returns to the court, writing there was "at least a fair prospect" the rule falls within USPS's authority. Alito and Thomas went further, calling the challenge a "Hail Mary pass" and arguing the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.

The decision removes a major source of uncertainty for the roughly one-third of American voters who cast ballots by mail, with state election officials from both parties welcoming the clarity. It follows a June Supreme Court ruling that also went against the administration's push to block counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward. The White House did not immediately comment on Monday's decision.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday it will eliminate rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, a rollback EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said would save the industry an estimated $310 billion and lower energy prices. The agency also said it would take steps to prevent future administrations from regulating power plant emissions altogether. The announcement came at a G20 energy ministerial in Houston, where Zeldin was joined by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

The EPA argued the Biden-era rules exceeded the agency's authority by requiring "control technologies that are not adequately demonstrated," effectively forcing plants toward retirement rather than setting achievable standards. The agency further stated that "any potential public health harms are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted" to tie specifically to the power sector, while pledging that separate safeguards against hazardous air pollutants would remain in place.

Environmental and public health groups strongly disputed that framing and vowed legal challenges. An Associated Press examination last year, drawing on the EPA's own prior assessments, estimated the targeted rules could prevent about 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion annually if kept in place; the Biden administration had separately estimated 4,500 premature deaths avoided per year. Power plants account for roughly a quarter of the nation's climate pollution, second only to transportation.

The rollback is among nearly three dozen environmental regulations Zeldin targeted last year in what he called the "most consequential day of deregulation in American history." The rule change is expected to face immediate legal challenges and represents one of the most significant reversals yet of Obama- and Biden-era climate policy, with implications for both industry costs and long-term public health outcomes that will likely play out in court for years.

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to raise its benchmark interest rate on Wednesday for the first time in three years, a move that would put the central bank directly at odds with President Trump's calls for a cut. The rate currently sits at about 3.6%. Futures markets put the odds of a hike at roughly 90%, following a Friday inflation report showing core prices, which exclude food and energy, picked up in August.

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh signaled at the Fed's Jackson Hole conference two weeks ago that inflation had not yet been brought under control, breaking from his predecessors' more forward-guided approach. Economists point to the reignited Iran war, which has driven up oil and gas prices, along with surging AI data center investment, as key forces pushing inflation higher and complicating the Fed's calculus just seven weeks before the midterms.

Trump has repeatedly demanded lower rates, saying over the weekend that "the United States is so strong we should be paying the lowest interest rate in the world." His top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said Trump "100% respects" Fed independence while simultaneously suggesting the central bank should avoid hiking so close to an election. Warsh has given no indication he will change course, and economists including JPMorgan's Michael Feroli argue his own credibility is now on the line if he doesn't follow through.

A rate hike would mark a sharp reversal from the Fed's own forecast as recently as March, when it expected to cut rates this year. With affordability already a central midterm issue, the decision could have significant political consequences, testing the boundary between monetary policy independence and White House pressure heading into a pivotal election.

The United States has publicly confirmed for the first time that it has deployed an offensive weapon in Earth's orbit. Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink made the acknowledgment Monday at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, saying the "on orbit" weapon was necessary to protect U.S. forces against hostile action. He did not detail the weapon's capabilities or when it was deployed.

The disclosure follows years of warnings from senior military leaders about Russian and Chinese programs designed to attack or disrupt U.S. satellites in a future conflict. A U.S. Space Force spokesperson described "space control" as encompassing both offensive and defensive capabilities, including "kinetic and non-kinetic means" to disrupt, degrade or destroy adversary systems when directed by military commanders. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit but does not prohibit other offensive capabilities, a gap all major space powers have explored.

The announcement comes amid growing concern over adversary capabilities: in February it was revealed that Russian satellites had likely intercepted communications from at least a dozen European satellites since 2022, and in 2024 the U.S. said Russia had launched a satellite it believed could attack other spacecraft. The Trump administration has also cited space-based interceptor capabilities as central to its planned "Golden Dome" missile defense system.

The confirmation marks a significant shift in U.S. transparency about space militarization, following an executive order last year that expanded the Space Force's role from purely defensive to include offensive operations. It underscores how orbit has become an active domain of great-power competition, with implications for satellite-dependent military communications, surveillance and navigation systems worldwide.

NATO fighter jets shot down a drone that entered Lithuanian airspace overnight, officials said Tuesday, marking the first time a drone has been downed in the country's airspace. The drone was intercepted near the village of Pratkūnai, about 60 miles west of Vilnius, after remaining in Lithuanian airspace for roughly 30 minutes. Lithuanian officials said the drone likely originated in Belarus and was probably carrying explosives, though its purpose remains under investigation.

The incident came less than a day after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned that strikes close to alliance territory reflected Russian President Vladimir Putin's "desperation" and would prompt NATO to increase support for Kyiv. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said Italian pilots serving in NATO's air defense mission responded swiftly, adding that "with Russia intensifying its aggression against Ukraine, such readiness is vital for our region." Poland also reported related "aviation operations" in its airspace the same night due to Russian drone activity near Ukraine.

The incursion followed a separate, unconfirmed development: President Trump posted on social media Monday that Russia and Ukraine had agreed "not to hit" each other's energy infrastructure, though no details were provided and Russian strikes continued across Ukraine afterward, wounding at least eight people in Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was "ready to support de-escalation" but saw no genuine sign Russia wants to end the war.

Drone incursions into NATO territory have become increasingly frequent since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, with Estonia, Latvia and Poland all experiencing similar incidents this year. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are treaty members bound by NATO's Article 5 mutual defense guarantee, making any escalation near their borders a matter of direct alliance concern. Tuesday's shootdown adds to fears that stray or deliberate strikes could pull NATO more directly into the conflict.

The first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland signed a memorandum of understanding Monday calling on the UK government to prepare for constitutional change, with all three declaring their political futures lie with the European Union. "There could be no clearer sign that Westminster's time is coming to an end," the leaders said in the pact. It is the first time leaders of all three devolved regions have simultaneously held pro-independence or pro-unification positions.

The announcement came roughly 48 hours after President Trump said during a UK visit that he would "love to see" a reunified Ireland, injecting a politically sensitive issue into the debate. Scotland's John Swinney and Northern Ireland's Michelle O'Neill both called for independence or unification referendums, while Wales's Rhun ap Iorwerth did not set a timetable. Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly, of the Democratic Unionist Party, accused O'Neill of "weaponizing" her role by signing the agreement.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Andy Burnham dismissed the pact's significance, saying Burnham "strongly believes in the union" and is focused on cost-of-living issues rather than constitutional debates. Academic Nicola McEwen of the University of Glasgow said the summit was "symbolically important" but carries no legal weight, adding she doesn't see the threat to the union as bigger today than yesterday. Still, support for Scottish independence has grown since Brexit, and Burnham told Parliament last week he would allow a new referendum if there were "clear consensus" in Scotland, before separately telling Swinney such a vote was "off limits."

Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a unification referendum in Northern Ireland is required if polling suggests it would likely pass — a threshold the UK government says has not been met, and Ireland would also need to approve any change. While the pact carries no immediate legal force, it signals growing momentum among devolved leaders and adds pressure on Westminster over the long-term question of whether the United Kingdom will remain intact.