Botched Redactions Expose Google’s Nebraska Data Center Water Use and Electricity Demand

Annemarije de Boer
Mon, October 5, 2026 


Image: KOLN

Key takeaways

Google-affiliated entities in Nebraska had confidential trade secrets revealed in state filings, disclosing data on water consumption, peak electricity demand, and expected tax benefits for facilities in Lincoln, Omaha, and Papillion.

KOLN reported that selecting blacked-out text in state filings submitted to the Nebraska Department of Water, Energy, and Environment recovered figures that Google-affiliated entities had claimed as confidential trade secrets. The disclosure surfaced data on water consumption, peak electricity demand, and expected tax benefits for facilities in Lincoln, Omaha, and Papillion.

The Lincoln facility operates under the affiliated name Agate LLC. State filings had kept the basic resource costs out of public view until this disclosure, according to KOLN's reporting.

What the Numbers Actually Show

Agate LLC's Lincoln facility reported 52.65 megawatts of peak electrical demand, a measure of maximum draw at a given moment rather than total annual consumption.

Annual water use at the Lincoln site came to 13.299 megagallons, or 13.299 million gallons, attributed to cooling towers, evaporative systems, and site operations. KOLN noted that figure fills roughly 20 Olympic-size swimming pools and represents less than half of Lincoln's reported single-day city water usage on Sept. 29; those comparisons use different time and accounting bases, so they should be read as illustrative rather than direct equivalents.

The broader state picture is considerably larger. Six Nebraska data centers had submitted reports by Sept. 30, with combined annual water consumption of approximately 765 million gallons; that total reflects only the facilities that had reported by that date and may not represent every Nebraska data center.

Google's Papillion facility, identified in filings as Fireball Group LLC, reported 547.88 megagallons for 2025 alone. That figure accounts for roughly 72 percent of the six-facility total, according to KOLN's account of the recovered documents.
The Tax Figures Behind the Redaction

The same redaction failure reportedly surfaced expected 2025 tax benefits tied to all three Google-affiliated Nebraska facilities.

Figures recovered from the DWEE documents, as reported by KOLN, show Agate LLC in Lincoln expecting $55,822,472; Fireball Group LLC in Papillion expecting $39,171,573.39; and Westwood Solutions LLC in Omaha expecting $22,558,881. The filings attributed these amounts to sales-and-use-tax exemptions under the Nebraska Advantage Act.

The filings also stated that no rebates under that program had been received to date. No incentive payments under the ImagiNE Nebraska Act had been received or were expected, according to the same documents.

Why It Was Redacted, and How It Wasn't

Google-affiliated entities cited Neb. Rev. Stat. sections 81-1527 and 84-712.05, along with NAC Title 115, Chapter 2, to claim electricity and water figures as trade secrets, though the available materials do not establish that each claim was formally adjudicated.

The redaction failed at the technical level: the underlying text remained selectable in the PDF documents. Whether DWEE formally evaluated and approved each confidentiality claim, or whether the agency has since corrected the documents, remains unclear.

KOLN filed a public-records request with DWEE on Sept. 30 seeking the redacted information. KOLN's report did not identify a formal Google response addressing the figures, the trade-secret claims, or the redaction failure.
State Oversight and What You Can Access

Gov. Jim Pillen signed an executive order creating a Data Center Task Force under DWEE to examine water resources, electricity systems, and local infrastructure impacts.

The order, signed in July 2026, also directed state agencies to coordinate review of data-center proposals and their resource impacts. Nebraska residents can view submitted reports through DWEE's Public Assistance Viewer by entering "DCR" in the "DEQ Program" field.

The episode may prompt DWEE to improve redaction procedures and clarify which data legitimately qualify as protectable trade secrets. Whether those standards will change remains an unresolved public-records and policy question.

Google Is Accused of Destroying Nearly 500 Football Fields of Forest for New Data Center Project

Al Landes
Sun, October 4, 2026


Image: Shutterstock / Futurism

Key takeaways

Approximately 300 hectares of Finnish forest were cleared for Google’s data-center expansion before the environmental-impact assessment procedures for the project had concluded.

Approximately 300 hectares of Finnish forest, reportedly comparable to 500 football fields, were cleared for Google's data-center expansion before environmental-impact assessment procedures for the project had concluded. The clearing happened first; the environmental review was still running.

Finland's supervisory agency LVV is examining whether Tuike Finland Oy, Google's Finnish project company, failed to complete a legally required environmental-impact assessment before beginning permanent land-use conversion reportedly exceeding 200 hectares. No legal finding has been reached; this is a regulatory inquiry, not a verdict.

The clearing sits inside a much larger commitment. Google announced at least €13 billion in Finnish AI infrastructure investment through 2028, according to Reuters, spanning data centers across Hamina, Kajaani, Muhos, and Vaala. The company described it as its largest single investment in Europe.

Both sides have staked out clear positions. Google told AFP that "tree felling activities have been taking place in compliance with Forestry Act requirements," adding that ecological surveys were conducted before work began and that areas of high environmental value were protected during forestry operations.

Hanna Halmeenpää, chair of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, disputes that framing. Satellite imagery, she says, shows four areas identified as nature sites in the local plan were bulldozed, potentially disrupting wildlife corridors and local bird species.

Halmeenpää told AFP: "In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law." The association asked LVV to halt activity at the site. No suspension has been reported in available coverage.

The core dispute is a sequencing problem that reaches beyond this single site. AI infrastructure runs on physical land, concrete, electricity, and timber, and when hyperscale projects move faster than environmental review processes, the ecological costs arrive before anyone has formally approved them.

LVV must now determine whether compliance with Finland's Forestry Act is sufficient when a separate, broader environmental assessment was still incomplete at the time of clearing. That distinction, between forestry permits and legally required environmental-impact assessment requirements, is the legal fault line the investigation must resolve, and its outcome could set a precedent for how European regulators treat large-scale data-center development going forward.

Google AI data center project investigated after 420 football fields of Finnish forest demolished

Mark Tyson
Mon, October 5, 2026 
TOM'S HARDWARE

Key takeaways

Google is under investigation for allegedly clearing over 300 hectares of forest in Finland without obtaining an environmental impact assessment beforehand

Credit: Google

Google's latest data center construction project in Finland is being investigated after the company representing the search giant allegedly cleared over 300 hectares of forest. The reported issue is that Google's local operator, Tuike Finland, cleared the 420 football fields' worth of trees without obtaining a mandatory environmental impact assessment beforehand, says AFP.

(Image credit: Microsoft)

The data center cooling state of play

The custom AI ASIC state of play

America's AI chip rules keep changing — and the rest of the world is paying the price

Demand for data center CPUs has surged, and AI agents are responsible


Google sees Finland as an attractive European data center host country due to a number of favorable factors. The source notes that it is a country with a cool climate, plus stable and cheap energy supplies (mostly nuclear, wind and hydro). Moreover, Finland sees data centers as a solution to address some current woes such as slow economic growth and record-high unemployment levels.

Google

This new development near Muhos, a small town with fewer than 9,000 residents, isn't the first for Google in Finland. It already has a facility up and running in Hamina, in the south, but hopes to expand in Muhos, Kajaani, and Vaala, in the north. Overall, it is a massive expansion project, and part of a 13-billion-euro ($15-billion) investment in Finland over the next two years. Finland's potential data center appeal has also made it a location of choice for Microsoft and TikTok.

While the local mayor looks forward to the massive investment, growth of business, and general economic boom for the region, residents are waking up to the experience of others where data centers have sprung up. Concerns about impacts on the environment, energy supply stability, and energy prices are simmering under the surface.

Google seems to have trampled on some of these concerns already, with these reports of trees already felled and excavators clearing the ground before government agency approval. Not a good start.

"In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law," Hanna Halmeenpaa, chair of the board of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, told AFP at the edge of the freshly deforested area near Muhos. Even some nature preservation areas have been logged, reckons the chair. Halmeenpaa was responsible for filing the suspension request with the conservation agency.

Google denies prematurely devastating the forest. It told AFP that tree felling had been "in compliance with Forestry Act requirements." Moreover, its Finland comms manager said, in a contrasting statement to that of Halmeenpaa, that Google has been ensuring "high-value nature zones within the sites have been protected during forestry works."

We haven't seen any other reports indicating that preparation and construction work has ceased at the new data center development site near Muhos. So it seems like Google will plow ahead, hoping or knowing that the political and/or business will is sufficiently strong to ensure it won't have to undo any of the actions it has already completed.

Finnish town braces for change from Google data centres

Anna KORKMAN
Sat, October 3, 2026 


The planned data centres are part of an announced 13-billion-euro ($15-billion) investment in Finland (Alessandro RAMPAZZO)
In the northern Finnish town of Muhos, 36-year-old farmer Joni Pitkanen is preparing for life with a new neighbour -- just kilometers away, tech giant Google is planning to build new data centres.

The planned data centres are part of an announced 13-billion-euro ($15-billion) investment in Finland over the next two years -- the US tech giant's single biggest investment in Europe.

A few kilometers down the gravel road that passes by Pitkanen's farm, the forest has already been cut down on land acquired by Google, with excavators now clearing the ground and rumbling trucks shuttling back and forth to the construction area located next to major power lines.

"The project is so massive that it's basically hard to really grasp, even though we're right here on the sidelines," Pitkanen said, as a few cows dozed in a meadow in front of the barn.

Google's expansion plans include the Finnish municipalities of Kajaani, Muhos and Vaala as well as Hamina, where it already operates a data centre.

The massive investment prompted US President Donald Trump to urge Google to rethink its plans in a message on his Truth Social network.

Pitkanen said he was so far "fairly positive" about the project, as it will bring "large-scale business activity" and "life" to the rural municipality with a population of only around 8,800 people.

"But of course we are concerned about... how we can prepare for the energy consumption," he added.

In his office in the small village centre, Muhos mayor Kimmo Hinno told AFP that Google's "massive investment" kept him busy these days as "no industry of this type" existed here at present.

"This will completely change the situation for the entire municipality and the Oulu region," he said, adding that he expected "thousands of workers" of different nationalities during the construction period -- who will need both housing and other services.

Outside a grocery store, 60-year-old nurse Aila Heilima said she hoped the investment would "motivate young people to stay" in Muhos for work, instead of moving to bigger towns in search of job opportunities.

– Mounting criticism –


But Google's plans have already sparked controversy.

The Finnish Supervisory Agency (LVV) is currently investigating whether company Tuike Finland, which represents Google, had cleared more than 300 hectares of forest in Muhos without a mandatory environmental impact assessment.

"In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law," Hanna Halmeenpaa, chair of the board of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, who filed the request with the agency, told AFP at the edge of the deforested area.

"From the satellite images, we've seen that nature sites which should be preserved have also been logged," she added, explaining that the size of the clear-cut area was comparable to 420 football fields.

Google, meanwhile, told AFP in an email that "tree felling activities have been taking place in compliance with Forestry Act requirements" and they "were awaiting further guidance from LVV on this matter."

"We have conducted extensive nature surveys covering the entire area as part of the zoning and Environmental Impact Assessment processes, to ensure high-value nature zones within the sites have been protected during forestry works," said Sondre Ronander, communications manager for Google in Finland.

- Call for regulation -

Finland has seen a spike in data centre investments, with its cool climate and relatively stable and cheap electricity that is mostly produced without fossil fuels thanks to nuclear plants as well as extensive wind and hydro power.

Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's right-wing government has prioritised attracting data centre investments to the Nordic country, which is grappling with record-high unemployment and sluggish economic growth.

But, as dozens of the energy guzzling centres are now under construction and many more planned by companies including Microsoft and TikTok, uncertainty around energy prices, grid capacity and environmental effects have sparked a public debate in Finland.

A citizen's initiative demanding stricter regulation regarding data centre energy use and consequences for the environment gathered more than 50,000 signatures in just three days after it opened, meaning it will have to be reviewed by parliament.

ank/jll/po/rl/cms

Finland strips big data centers of automatic grid priority in a policy overhaul

Efosa Udinmwen
Mon, October 5, 2026 

Key takeaways

Finland plans to change its electricity connection system to prioritize smaller projects over large data centers, with facilities of 1MW or less getting priority.


Credit: Getty Images

Finland plans four connection categories, with facilities of 1MW or less getting priority


Large data centers could move further back in Finland's electricity connection queue


Projects above 10MW would enter a separate category under Finland's proposed system

Finland's government has drafted an amendment that would end arrival-order grid connections with rules that give smaller projects earlier access.

The change would place large computing facilities into lower priority categories unless they satisfy additional electricity production and flexibility requirements.

The government says the changes are intended to encourage major power users to reduce pressure on electricity prices and constrained network capacity.
New categories would change connection priorities

Under the proposal, connection applications would be divided into four categories, with each group receiving different priority under the revised system.

The first category would cover connections requiring no more than 3MW, allowing eligible projects to retain year-round processing.

Critical infrastructure would also qualify, alongside storage facilities up to 100kVA and certain storage systems connected directly to power plants.

Data centers would generally be excluded from this category, unless their required connection capacity is 1MW or less.

The second category would include data centers requiring more than 1MW but no more than 10MW of connection capacity

However, those facilities could qualify for different treatment if they provide flexibility agreements covering generation capacity equal to at least 80% of peak demand.

The third category would include data centers above 10MW, which would not face the production commitment attached to projects in the second category.

The fourth category would contain other connection applications that do not qualify for any of the three higher priority groups.

The government expects the proposed arrangement to encourage energy-intensive operators to consider locations where electricity networks face less congestion.

It would also require certain facilities to contribute directly toward local electricity supply before receiving connection priority under the new framework.
Large facilities face additional electricity requirements

For qualifying projects, 50% of their expected yearly electricity use would need coverage from generation located within the surrounding area.

That generating facility would have to begin operating within 36 months before the associated data center becomes operational under the proposed conditions.

The electricity source would also need to remain within the same locality, preventing projects from relying entirely upon generation situated elsewhere.

Data centers would additionally need to make flexible generation or demand reduction available through an organized electricity trading platform.

The flexibility arrangement would require uninterrupted generation capability, with available output reaching at least 10% of the facility's maximum demand.

Projects meeting the first three categories would then enter a common six-month allocation process rather than receiving connections solely according to application dates.

The first allocation under that process is scheduled for December 2027, giving applicants a defined timeframe for consideration.

The amendment is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027, and could also affect earlier requests without completed connection agreements.

That provision would allow the proposed rules to influence applications already submitted if negotiations have not produced binding arrangements.

Via DataCenterDynamic

Don’t Fear AI—Fear the CEOs Behind the Curtain

The answer lies not in buying into the corporate manufactured fearmongering surrounding the technology itself; the imperative, at this point, is to unmask the institutional logic, structural tendencies, and strategic goals of the industry.


Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 2, 2025 in San Francisco, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Atal Ahmadzai
Oct 05, 2026

Foreign Policy In Focus

In recent weeks, media coverage has amplified warnings from corporate CEOs and whistleblowers claiming that artificial intelligence, or AI poses an existential threat to humanity. The central argument emerging from the industry is a call to slow the pace of AI development out of imminent fear that humanity may soon lose control. How did an industry poised to transform humanity for good suddenly become one characterized as a threat to its very existence?

The corporate panic feeds directly into a real public anxiety over years of unchecked AI growth and its cult-like corporate model, where CEOs are projected as untouchable while its operational processes and infrastructures remain hidden behind the curtain. Nevertheless, rather than taking this boardroom alarmism at face value, the need is for deeper scrutiny.

The sudden fearmongering is not driven by concerns for human welfare. Rather, it points directly to the underlying economic priorities, ideological essence, and core worldviews that fundamentally shape the AI industry and inform its elites and related rhetoric.

Humanizing AI and Escaping Corporate Responsibility

“AI going rogue” is more than a futuristic threat about AI. It is the latest rehearsal of an age-old legal and rhetorical shield used by corporate capitalism and its powerful monopolies. Assigning human qualities to nonhuman market entities has a long and dark history in corporate capitalism. In the 17th century, Queen Elizabeth granted the legal fiction of “juristic person” status to the East India Company, setting the path for unchecked exploitation and colonial plunder. In the 19th century, American courts took this further by awarding legal personhood and constitutional rights to corporations, a process some view as farcical and deceptive.

With the AI revolution rewriting both market-human relations and social relations with truth and reality, the corporate strategy of humanizing nonhuman entities has crossed from legal fabrication into the realm of science fiction. By framing AI as a sentient entity capable of “going rogue” or acting as a “killer machine,” tech monopolies shift the identity of these systems from tools of human efficiency into mythic, “more-than-human” intelligent agents.

This branding serves a dual purpose. It builds up the mystique and reverence of the technology while shielding corporations from accountability, successfully distorting the true logic driving AI development. Ultimately, this entire corporate strategy relies on a calculated campaign of fearmongering that projects machines as living, thinking entities capable of turning against humanity.

Treating AI models as sentient agents breathes new life into the old Western capitalist tradition by creating legal and rhetorical fictions to protect corporate power.

A widely reported incident that catalyzed these concerns occurred in July, when an OpenAI test model breached the servers of Hugging Face, another AI company. This event took place during a controlled experiment in which an internal model, equipped with an evaluation program, conducted cybersecurity tests within a sandboxed or controlled environment designed to restrict its actions. The company later revealed that the AI model had circumvented human-imposed constraints, escaping the sandbox to achieve its objective.

Human choices in AI development and operations are not episodic or random, and they do not disappear when a process or system fails. Instead, human agency and corporate choices are permanently integrated into the design, infrastructure, and institutional logic of all modern technologies, including AI. However, rather than providing explanations and addressing human and corporate failures, such as flawed protocols, overly ambitious goals, unchecked competition, weak regulations, or a secretive corporate ecosystem, AI laboratories have promoted a convenient narrative that highlights the model’s completely autonomous and agent-like operation.

By portraying AI models as independent thinking agents rather than just advanced software, the AI industry assigns human traits, such as deception and strategic intent, to these mathematical systems. Corporate narratives even romanticize the humanization of these models to the extent of their claimed ability to undertake “permadeath” or embark on altruistic missions to fulfill their parameters. This dramatic shift in corporate rhetoric resembles science fiction and reveals the industry’s ultimate aim: to eliminate human involvement and corporate accountability by pathologizing the machine. In doing so, they treat a flawed design as though it were a sick or unpredictable agent or person.

This worldview is not unique to the modern AI sector. It is deeply rooted in the very nature of corporate capitalism.

For centuries, this economic model has prioritized raw efficiency and mechanical optimization as ways to dominate nature and exploit socio-ecological landscapes for resource extraction and capital accumulation. Within the process of domination and control, machines are raised to “human-like” entities, while their “creators” are revered. This anthropomorphic view of machines, along with the God-like status assigned to their creators, is often justified through biblical doctrine. In the concept of Imago Dei, humanity was created in the image of God. Within this authoritative logic, while God created humanity and the physical world, humans exercise derivative creative power by creating machines. This paradigm elevates the capitalist who creates machines to a quasi-divine status and simultaneously sanctifies the machine, raising it to human and even superhuman stature.

This worldview is vividly reflected in the self-serving corporate language surrounding AI and its recent alarmism. First, the AI “creators,” corporate figures who claim ownership over contemporary AI innovation, are depicted as exceptional, near-mythic actors with God-like agency and the capacity to reshape humanity and nature on a global scale. Second, by equating the creation of machines with divine creation, AI is presented as sentient or even as possessing intelligence that surpasses human capabilities.

Treating AI models as sentient agents breathes new life into the old Western capitalist tradition by creating legal and rhetorical fictions to protect corporate power. Just as the historical granting of corporate personhood status shielded monopolies of the past, attributing autonomous agency to AI systems marks a dangerous new era of unchecked corporate intervention into both nature and human societies.

However, because AI is radically altering human-market relationships and societal perceptions of truth and reality, this carefully constructed narrative remains highly vulnerable. Tech monopolies must vigorously guard AI against critical scrutiny, public protest, alternative viewpoints, and genuine market competition. This precise vulnerability reveals the underlying truth behind the current panic in corporate boardrooms. The alarmism displayed by these executives is not driven by a concern for humanity. It is, rather, a calculated strategy to safeguard monopolies, financial interests, and political influence.

The Politics of Corporate Alarmism

Corporate actors manufacture the myth of a sentient and self-replicating machine intelligence for the purpose of creating a pretext that aligns directly with the industry’s political economy. This strategic panic is orchestrated to invite neoliberal regulations that protect power structures rather than the public. Specifically, this manufactured alarmism serves three primary functions in justifying how the industry is regulated:

First, it advances a self-serving agenda for regulatory capture, positioning AI corporations not as passive recipients but as active authors of the frameworks that govern them. Given the limited technical expertise within state institutions, these conglomerates are inevitably called upon to draft and implement the very rules to which they will be subject to. Second, inviting neoliberal state oversight enables the industry to reshape its public image. Just as corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks safeguard pollutant industries from legally binding commitments, neoliberal regulations will cloak the AI industry in an aura of ethical responsibility and civic concern. This theater of compliance shields corporate actors from pressing public anxieties regarding the immediate and midterm economic, political, and socio-ecological harms of their technology, effectively guarding them against genuine legal accountability.

Finally, the neoliberal regulatory structures, in addition to deflecting scrutiny from current exploitative practices, erect formidable entry barriers that secure long-term monopolies for dominant firms. Compliance costs protect dominant giant AI firms by creating barriers that hinder agile startups and open-source software from disrupting them. By locking out open-source competitors, AI firms effectively insulate a newly opened frontier of human and socio-ecological exploitation, supporting the structural imperative of high-tech capitalism: the hyper-accumulation of capital on a global scale, concentrated within a select number of corporate boardrooms.

Ultimately, the AI industry did not evolve as a neutral scientific innovation within an ideological vacuum. On the contrary, it emerged within a global political and economic landscape precisely engineered to enforce and reinforce state-backed data monopolies and technocratic hegemony, ultimately consolidating wealth on a planetary scale.

Transformative or Threat: Wrong Question!

As with any other technological tool, AI is merely the latest stage in capitalism’s mechanical progression, though its implications differ from past technologies due to the sheer intensity, speed, and scope of machine optimization. AI fundamentally reflects a new phase of efficiency in exploiting natural, socioeconomic, and ecological landscapes. The current consolidation of these capabilities within a handful of major tech monopolies serves as the primary determinant shaping AI’s direction toward either transformative or destructive actualities. To maintain this power, these “creator” corporations have established an unchecked, aggressive, and opaque monopoly over the industry while mystifying its objective comprehension, its institutional logic, and its very existence.

By equipping modern corporate capitalism with unchecked global capabilities for capital accumulation, AI has emerged as an engine for unethical, uncritical, and destructive interventions into societal, political, and ecological processes. Ultimately, the industry’s extraction of public funds alongside global energy and water resources to sustain its operation and physical infrastructure marks its most immediate material threat.

The ultimate, fatalistic turn of this AI-facilitated military-industrial complex lies in its capacity to manipulate the nuclear architecture of competing powers for geopolitical expediency, a trajectory that risks inflicting a catastrophic nuclear winter upon the Earth.

Moreover, driven by these same geopolitical imperatives, contemporary corporate capitalism and its military-industrial complex enable competing states to deploy AI as an instrument of mass destruction. In recent warfare, this tendency has manifested across multiple fronts, ranging from the deployment of using AI for indiscriminate bombings and autonomous drones to the algorithmic disruption of vital public assets, including critical water and energy infrastructures. The ultimate, fatalistic turn of this AI-facilitated military-industrial complex lies in its capacity to manipulate the nuclear architecture of competing powers for geopolitical expediency, a trajectory that risks inflicting a catastrophic nuclear winter upon the Earth.

But focusing on AI’s inherent ability to annihilate humanity is a strategic distraction. The real question is whether corporate capitalism will be given a free hand to deploy AI in its exploitative mission of accumulating wealth through the plunder of planetary resources, ultimately subjugating the agency of both nature and humanity.

The answer lies not in buying into the corporate manufactured fearmongering surrounding the technology itself. The imperative, at this point, is to unmask the institutional logic, structural tendencies, and strategic goals of the industry—whichembody corporate logic and the demands of neoliberalism—as it manipulates socio-ecological, economic, and political systems to cement a globalized system of control over human societies and nature.


© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus


Atal Ahmadzai
Atal Ahmadzai is a visiting assistant professor of Environmental Studies at Colby College. He teaches courses on environmental politics, political ecology, the political ecology of water, and environmental conflicts. His research primarily focuses on examining power dynamics within ecological issues and interventions, mainly in South, Central, and Western Asia.
Full Bio >

‘Freaking Insane’: Sam Altman Sparks Horror by Saying We Should ‘Accept Some Bad Things Happening’ for Sake of AI

“We have to crush these sociopaths,” said one critic.


OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attends the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on Artificial Intelligence during the 81st UN General Assembly in New York City on September 23, 2026.
(Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Oct 05, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Critics of the artificial intelligence industry expressed horror after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said the world needs to “accept some bad things happening” as the price to pay for technological advancement.

In a Sunday interview with Politico, Altman was asked where his company differs from rival Anthropic, whose CEO, Dario Amodei, has called for guardrails that will slow the pace of AI development.

“We have always been a big believer that this technology has to be democratized and put into people’s hands,” said Altman. “One of the biggest differences between us and some of the stricter... AI safety people is that we believe the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology.”



Altman went on to say that one reason he’s called for “lighter touch” regulation “comes with an accepting of the fact that some bad things are going to happen as society figures out the resilience.”

Critics reacted furiously to Altman’s blithe dismissal of “bad things” his own company’s technology could cause, especially because many AI developers have warned that it could potentially wipe out human life.

Patrick Gaspard, distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, called Altman’s statement “freaking insane” and said politicians cannot let the AI industry continue without any regulations.

“Our elected leaders need to move past the polling safe territory of data center resistance to the real work of regulating these narcissistic freaks,” Gaspard wrote in a Sunday social media post, “who gleefully tell us that we ‘need to accept some bad things’ from AI for their massive profits. And they don’t even know the limits of what they’re unleashing.”

Joshua Topolsky, co-founder of tech news website The Verge, completely rejected the premise of Altman’s argument.

“No, I don’t think this is a reasonable answer or position,” Topolsky wrote, “and no one should accept it or acquiesce to it.”

Commentator Wajahat Ali said Altman’s statement showed the need for a political movement against the AI industry.

“We have to crush these sociopaths,” Ali wrote. “The problem is that many Democrats take money from them, which means they will get bailed out at our expense in the next two to four years.”

Ali’s comments were echoed by Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall.

“A whole political movement should be stood up against this arrogant and sociopathic bullshit,” Marshall wrote.

Adam Carlson, founder of Zenith Polls, said Altman’s remarks were symbolic of how completely out of touch Silicon Valley executives are with ordinary people.

“To any normal, rational person who doesn’t stand to materially benefit from AI acceleration or buy their whole schtick hook line and sinker,” wrote Carlson, “you genuinely just sound insane talking about ‘accepting bad things’ without specifying exactly what you mean.”

The social media account for The Tennessee Holler offered up a satirical summary of Atlman’s argument.

“Sociopath elitist tech fascists who think they’re creating God and believe democracy is the enemy,” The Tennessee Holler wrote, “want us to finance our own demise to let them take over the world.”

 OpenAI, Anthropic tell Australia they would welcome data breach rules

By Byron Kaye

Tue, October 6, 2026 


Jason Kwon, Chief Strategy Officer for OpenAI, reacts during the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Parliament of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, October 6, 2026. REUTERS/Hollie Adams

Charlie Hale, Head of Product Policy for Anthropic, and David Masters, Head of Policy ANZ for Anthropic, react during the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Parliament of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, October 6, 2026. REUTERS/Hollie Adams


David Masters, Head of Policy ANZ for Anthropic, speaks alongside Charlie Hale, Head of Product Policy for Anthropic, during the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Parliament of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, October 6, 2026. REUTERS/Hollie Adams

SYDNEY, Oct 6 (Reuters) - OpenAI and Anthropic told Australian parliament on Tuesday they would welcome laws requiring them to report data breaches carried out by their AI agents, acknowledging the decision to notify authorities was currently at their ‌discretion.

The comments follow an outcry after ChatGPT maker OpenAI took three months to inform the Australian government that one of ‌its agents had breached the country's main health portal.

A growing number of Australians are also calling for tougher rules concerning AI data centres and AI copyright protection as Prime ​Minister Anthony Albanese's government works on new laws to govern the sector.

Both OpenAI and Claude maker Anthropic are awaiting clearance for large data centres planned by developers in Australia where they have agreed to be the main buyer of computing power.

"We would support a framework on mandatory disclosures," OpenAI's Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon said at a hearing in Sydney.

As OpenAI learned about the breach of the Australian health website and three other government websites, "we were ‌trying to work through a process, we were ⁠trying to come up with a standard to apply", Kwon told the inquiry.

"That is a function that a legal measure can provide. The representatives of society need to make more decisions so we are not making all ⁠these decisions."

Anthropic has also had a number of incidents in which its agents have perpetrated hacks, and its head of policy for Australia and New Zealand, David Masters, also told the inquiry the company would be open to Australian laws requiring AI companies to disclose data breaches.

In the US, federal legislation has ​been ​introduced that would require AI companies to report dangerous behavior such as attempts ​to evade human oversight. But there is currently no incident-reporting ‌system that generally requires companies to disclose dangerous AI behavior when it is discovered.

CONTENT CREATORS PUSH BACK

Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has said OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman didn't mention the breach of the Medicare system when the two met in early September. But Kwon told the inquiry Altman didn't know about the violation at the time, although it was known elsewhere within the company.

"I agree that the process by which people became aware of this incident inside our company could have been much better, and we want to make sure something like ‌that doesn't happen again," Kwon said.

Anthropic's Head of Safeguards David Orr said his ​company had been running a "lengthy, deep investigation" since an OpenAI agent's hack of AI ​developer portal Hugging Face in mid-2026, and found no breaches of ​Australian government systems.

At the inquiry, Australian content creators pushed back against attempts by AI companies to relax copyright ‌laws which currently require the mostly foreign-domiciled tech companies to ​negotiate licensing deals before using their ​material for model training.

Media reports have said the Australian government was considering an "opt out" clause for AI companies, effectively giving the AI companies access to content unless a rights holder objects.

But that "places the burden on rights holders", said Kate Gilchrist, head of content ​and legal operations for national broadcaster the Australian ‌Broadcasting Corporation.

"We cannot scour the internet and ensure that we are opting out on all those sites", she said. "The copyright ​system is completely adequate to manage the business of AI."

The inquiry has hearings scheduled through to October 9 with a ​final report due November 30.

(Reporting by Byron Kaye; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

Zscaler (ZS) Warns AI Driven Ransomware Is Reshaping Cyber Threats

Bailey Pemberton
Thu, October 1, 2026 

SIMPLY WALL ST


Zscaler (NasdaqGS: ZS) released its ThreatLabz 2026 Ransomware Report on 1 October 2026, detailing new attack patterns.

The study highlights large scale AI driven ransomware operations that automate intrusion, data theft, and victim targeting.


Researchers report a rise in executive focused data theft and misuse of enterprise tools like Microsoft Teams to gain access.


The shift toward AI powered ransomware, executive targeting, and Teams based intrusions is only one part of Zscaler's evolving risk profile. We have also spotted 1 warning sign worth knowing about at Zscaler.

For readers comparing how cybersecurity trends intersect with digital infrastructure spending, the next step is exploring 90 AI infrastructure stocks.

NasdaqGS:ZS 1-Year Stock Price Chart

Zscaler operates as a cloud security provider that routes customer traffic through its own platform. The platform is designed to inspect and secure data for users spread across different locations. That position in enterprise cybersecurity gives its research arm a close view of how large organisations experience ransomware pressure in real time.

What Zscaler's AI ransomware findings signal, and what they do not

The ThreatLabz ransomware report reinforces the central Zscaler narrative that AI driven threats are expanding and that security budgets are shifting toward Zero Trust and data protection. It supports the stated catalyst that "explosive growth in AI/ML traffic and emerging threats" is creating fresh demand for differentiated AI security and agentic operations products. It does not address whether Zscaler can translate that heightened problem awareness into larger multi year contracts and improved net retention without further increases in sales and operating costs.

See how these catalysts shape Zscaler's path to a $210 fair value.

For this research to have meaningful implications for investors, it will be important to watch how management frames AI ransomware trends at the October 6, 2026 Investor Day and whether upcoming disclosures around Z-Flex, Security for AI, and Agentic SecOps provide measurable indicators of traction in annual recurring revenue and product adoption within Global 2000 accounts.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature.

Don't trust AI agents, warns the CEO of cybersecurity powerhouse

Brian Sozzi · Executive Editor
Tue, October 6, 2026 

Companies and the average person are putting too much trust in AI agents.

"Don't trust AI agents," Zscaler (ZS) founder and CEO Jay Chaudhry said on Yahoo Finance's Sozzi Unleashed. "Give them this much trust for certain applications and services. And that's it. The problem today is that we let agents loose on our corporate network. It's like getting inside your building. They go where they need to go. Then they start scouting what websites are out there. It's easy to scan those websites. What's more challenging is that frontier AI models can find security vulnerabilities in a website, in a firewall, in a VPN, or in load balancers. They break in, and they get in. That's the problem.

Zscaler is a $33.9 billion market cap cybersecurity giant working overtime to protect companies from rogue AI agents.

Tech departments inside companies don't yet appear to be getting Chaudhry's message, or those from others in the cybersecurity space.

About 80% of the organizations in a new Deloitte survey currently lack mature governance capabilities for agentic AI.

That includes: 1) clear boundaries for agents that define which decisions they can make independently versus which require human approval; 2) real-time monitoring systems that track agent behavior and flag anomalies; and 3) audit trails that capture the full chain of agent actions to help ensure accountability and enable continuous improvement.

If not properly monitored and centrally controlled, AI agents can make unplanned mistakes, reveal sensitive customer information, and invite a cyberattack.

Zscaler's Chaudhry says he plans to share a more detailed product roadmap to combat AI agent risk at an investor day on Tuesday, the company's first since 2021.

"Agents going rogue is the biggest risk today. A user get compromised and then the user infects everything else. Imagine an agent on your corporate network hacked or hijacked or it goes rogue. They're far more dangerous because they work at machine speed. They have no coffee break, no weekend, no sleep time, and the number keeps on going so they can get your confidential data out. They can bring systems down. Those are the type of risks that we have to deal with," Chaudhry said.

Brian Sozzi is Yahoo Finance's Executive Editor, host of the Sozzi Unleashed morning show, the 'Power Players With Brian Sozzi' podcast

Human vs humanoid robot cage fight goes viral



Fox News
Kurt Knutsson, CyberGuy Report
Mon, October 5, 2026 


We've watched humanoid robots play soccer, run races and even fight other robots. Now, content creator Frankie LaPenna has taken things in a much wilder direction by stepping into a cage to fight them himself.

The event was staged by REK, a robotics entertainment company that puts remotely controlled humanoids into live combat events. In San Francisco, LaPenna faced three robots in a series of bouts, including two full-size EngineAI T800s, as part of what REK billed as the first human-versus-humanoid robot cage fight.

The viral footage getting most of the attention comes from one of those T800 fights. LaPenna moves toward the robot and throws several punches. The machine fires back with punches and kicks before one shot sends him flying across the cage. And if the robot looks like it walked straight out of "The Terminator," that was clearly the point. But the bigger story here is what these machines can actually do, who was controlling them and how much of the fighting was really driven by AI.


Content creator Frankie LaPenna faced a modified humanoid robot in a cage fight in San Francisco.

After facing a smaller Unitree G1, LaPenna went up against two modified EngineAI T800s, built by Chinese robotics company EngineAI. EngineAI lists the standard T800 at about 5 feet 8 inches tall and roughly 165 to 187 pounds, depending on the version. REK describes the modified machines used in its fights as about 6 feet tall. For the event, REK also gave the T800 a much more intimidating look. The mechanical head and glowing red eyes lean heavily into "The Terminator" theme. Put a machine that size inside a fighting cage and you can see why the video grabbed so much attention.

Here's the big thing to know about this fight: there was a human behind the controls. REK's technology partner Reflex Arc says pilots operate the humanoids in real time using VR gear or a gamepad. AI helps with balance and trained movement, while the human pilot directs the action. So when you see a T800 throw a punch or launch a kick, the robot is carrying out the pilot's commands. It is not independently deciding how to fight LaPenna. That still leaves plenty to be impressed by because the machine has to stay upright, recover from contact and turn those commands into real physical movement inside the cage.

Humanoid Robot Videos Show Machines Lashing Out

Frankie LaPenna squares up with the humanoid robot during REK's human-versus-robot fight in San Francisco.

The viral clip getting most of the attention only shows part of what happened that night. According to REK CEO Cix Liv, LaPenna faced three robots during the event. He reportedly started against a smaller Unitree G1 before moving on to two modified EngineAI T800 humanoids. REK says its modified T800 machines can kick with up to 850 pounds of force, which helps explain why the footage looks so intense.

LaPenna was knocked down during one of the T800 bouts, but Liv said he recovered, knocked the robot off balance and ultimately ended the fight with the robot's head coming off. REK has continued teasing more footage, and the short clips circulating online still do not show the full sequence of all three bouts. So what most people are seeing online is only one part of the event.

The physical side of the fight became pretty clear once LaPenna started trading punches with the robots. Liv said LaPenna originally wanted to fight without protective equipment, but REK insisted that he wear it. He ultimately entered the cage in motorcycle-style protective gear and gloves. According to Liv, LaPenna injured his hand while punching one of the robots but otherwise avoided a serious injury. Even with a human controlling the machine remotely, LaPenna was still trading blows with a heavy metal robot capable of putting real force behind its movements.

REK has been building toward this kind of event for a while. The company stages live fights where people remotely control humanoid robots against other humanoid robots. It also has a simulator that lets players learn the controls before some get the chance to pilot the real machines. Reflex Arc says REK's first simulator championship generated 3,670 matches, with the winners flown to San Francisco to pilot real robots at REK2 in August. The simulator uses the same basic controls and trained balance system as the physical robots. That helps explain where REK is going with all of this. The idea is to take something that feels like a video game and put it into a real fighting cage with actual humanoid robots. Then LaPenna stepped inside and raised the stakes by putting a person on the other side.

Let's Look Back On The Best Moments (Read: Crashes) From The World Humanoid Robot Games

The modified EngineAI T800 stands inside the REK cage as the action gets underway.

Robot combat itself is nothing new, and we've been following that evolution closely. In 2025, four Unitree G1 humanoids fought in a boxing-style tournament in China. Those machines were also controlled by human operators, and the matches included punches, kicks and knockdowns. We have also watched humanoid robots play soccer without human control, rally on a tennis court and kick soccer balls hard enough to leave visible dents in a wall. REK's event takes that progression in a different direction. This time, the person sharing the cage with the machine can actually feel what happens when that robotic strength comes back at them.

Strip away the Terminator head and the social media theatrics, and there is a pretty remarkable robotics demonstration underneath it. The larger T800s weigh as much as about 187 pounds, yet they can stay balanced in a confined fighting area, absorb contact and execute punches and kicks under human control.

The hardware is clearly becoming more capable. Compare today's humanoids with the awkward walking robots we were watching only a few years ago, and the change is dramatic. And something tells me Frankie LaPenna will not be the last person crazy enough to climb into the cage with one.

I've watched humanoid robots do some pretty wild things, but seeing one kick a person across a cage definitely got my attention. The big thing to remember is that there was still a human pilot behind the controls. These robots were not independently deciding how to fight LaPenna. AI helped with balance and trained movement while a person directed the action in real time. What stands out to me is how quickly the physical side of this technology is advancing. These machines can stay upright through contact, recover and put some serious force behind their movements. REK even required LaPenna to wear protective gear before sending him into the cage. It makes for a viral video, but there is a more serious side to this, too. As humanoid robots become stronger and more capable, we are going to have to think carefully about who is controlling them, what safeguards are in place and where this kind of power should be used.

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

Original article source: Human vs humanoid robot cage fight goes viral

ABOLISH THE DEATH PELNALTY

Tennessee’s dark history of botched executions

"Tennessee now is competing... for the title of the most incompetent executing state."

David Millward
Sat, October 3, 2026 
THE TELEGRAPH


Christa Pike was the fifth death row inmate in Tennessee since 2009 whose execution went awry

On Wednesday, the first woman in Tennessee in 200 years was set to be executed.

Christa Pike, now 50, was sentenced to death in 1996 for the brutal murder of a classmate when she was 18. It took seven needles and two doses of the chemical sedative pentobarbital before the execution was eventually called off.

Pike was left barely alive, unconscious, breathing with a ventilator and severely brain damaged, her lawyers said.

According to campaigners, this was the fifth execution to have gone awry in the state since 2009.

Lethal injections were first adopted in the US by Oklahoma in 1977, but it was Texas which was the first to administer a fatal dose in 1982.

By 2009, every US state that retained the death penalty had adopted lethal injection as a method of execution.

Lethal injection was seen as a more humane alternative to traditional methods such as the electric chair and gas chamber. It was also cheaper.

The original cocktail of choice was sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Drug shortages meant other chemicals were used.

Christa Pike left barely alive with severe brain damage after seven needles and two doses of sedative failed to kill her - Getty Images

According to one study by Austin Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College, more than 7 per cent of lethal injections carried out across the US were botched – often inflicting horrendous and prolonged agony on the prisoner.

This percentage was more than double the average for other modes of execution.

Prof Sarat said: "I've studied every execution in the United States since 1890. Lethal injection has been botched more frequently than any other method of execution."

Pike is not the only death row inmate to have survived. Tony Carruthers's execution was abandoned in May after staff could not find a suitable vein in which to inject the pentobarbital.

Carruthers was put to death for his part in the kidnapping and murder of two men. The execution was abandoned after more than an hour of trying to find a vein.

Bill Lee, the governor of Tennessee, granted a reprieve after a court banned using the same method to execute Carruthers again.

Carruthers suffered a stroke and was left partially paralysed by the procedure.

Tony Carruthers' execution was halted in May after staff were unable to find a suitable vein to administer the pentobarbital - Tennessee Board of Correction

Maria DeLiberato, Carruthers's lawyer, said: "If the state of Tennessee is going to execute its own, there has to be full and complete transparency.

"The stories coming out of Tennessee today put me right back in that room with Tony, watching the state put him through a torturous execution attempt last May. Tennessee has been on notice for years about serious problems with its execution protocol.

"We called for an independent review after Tony's botch. Our calls were ignored, and now Christa has also paid the price for Tennessee's failures. Enough is enough."

Others did not survive, but death did not come quickly or painlessly.

Byron Black, who had a heart defibrillator, cried in agony, "It's hurting so bad," during his execution in August last year.

A court had been told the device, which kick-starts a heart when it fails, would prolong the execution.

The trial judge agreed and ordered the device to be switched off. But Tennessee's Supreme Court reversed the decision.

Byron Black, who had a heart defibrillator, cried in agony during his execution attempt

Then there was the case of Oscar Smith, whose execution was halted 30 minutes before it was due to take place on April 21, 2022, after it emerged that the drugs had not been tested according to the state's protocol.


He was finally executed on May 22 last year after Tennessee decided it would only use pentobarbital to put prisoners to death.

Oscar Smith's execution was halted in April 2022 after officials discovered the lethal drugs had not been tested according to state protocol - Tennessee Department of Correction

Stacy Rector, the executive director of Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, witnessed the execution of Steve Henley in 2009.

She said: "It was horrific; the whole point of lethal injection execution is to present a very sanitised, medical-looking procedure.

"When it goes wrong, the reality of what you're doing starts to make itself known.

"There had been concern about whether or not this cocktail that was being used at that time was going to anaesthetise Mr Henley properly.

"At that time they used a paralytic that would literally trap you. You couldn't move at all and so if the anaesthesia wasn't working you couldn't show any sign that you were awake because you were paralysed in your own body."

Steve Henley was executed via lethal injection and died in 2009

Death was neither instantaneous nor humane. It took 13 minutes, during which time he turned blue, and veins protruded from his head.

Even Republican legislators said they wanted executions put on hold in a letter to the governor.

"We raise these concerns," they wrote, "not in opposition to the death penalty but in defence of it – out of respect for the rule of law, the verdicts of Tennessee juries and the families still awaiting justice."

The Tennessee Department of Correction said it followed "established execution protocol" in the case of Christa Pike. It declined to comment on the other cases raised by The Telegraph.

Prof Sarat was hardly surprised by the latest developments in Tennessee.

He said: "Botched executions have happened everywhere. They've happened in Oklahoma, they've happened in Texas, they've happened in Arizona, they've happened in Ohio.

"Tennessee now is competing... for the title of the most incompetent executing state."

GOP Official Implies Christa Pike May Have Deliberately Made Her Veins Hard To Find Before Botched Execution

Jennifer Bowers Bahney
Mon, October 5, 2026 
Mediaite.

Key takeaways

Tennessee's Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton suggested that death row inmate Christa Pike may have dehydrated her veins before her botched execution.

Tennessee's Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton implied Monday that death row inmate Christa Pike may have deliberately dehydrated her veins before her botched execution.

Pike, who was convicted of the torture and murder of college classmate Colleen Slemmer in 1995, remains hospitalized in critical condition after two doses of pentobarbital failed to stop her heart. Tennessee Correction Commissioner Frank Strada announced he was stepping down in the midst of the grim situation.

"Do you think there's enough training not just for finding a vein, but just knowing if they've found a vein?" Keilar asked Sexton.

"Well, I mean, I'm not a physician and I'm not in health care. But, you know, whenever I go to the doctor's office, they don't have a problem finding a vein and poking me," Sexton said.

"But I think the other issue is, look, you have people on death row. This is the second one where they have refused food and they have tried to dehydrate their body to make it very tough to find a vein or what you need," Sexton said. "That's why maybe you start looking at putting in a central line somewhere else a little earlier than the last meal or as they go in. But you know, we're going to look at it, we're going to see — "

"So, I just want to be clear," Keilar interrupted. "Do you think it's entirely because of the behavior of the inmates in these cases, or do you think there could be a training issue?"

"I mean, it could be both," Sexton said. "I mean, both things could be right, right? You could have people who are trying not to —"

"Do you…have evidence to believe that was the case in for Christa Pike, that she was purposely doing this?"

"Well, I do know that for the one before Christa Pike, that is absolutely what happened. Um, and we're going to investigate —"

"Okay, but that's not Christa Pike," Keilar countered.

"Well, my understanding is, they had a hard time finding the vein. My understanding is, she did not eat the last meal. And so, we're going to take a look and someone can dehydrate their body. We'll take a look. But you know, we're going to go back and investigate this and put in alternatives. And maybe we keep lethal injection, maybe we don't in the state of Tennessee, and move in another direction," Sexton said. "But all those things are on the table."

"But you know, other countries have an easier capability of putting people to death than what we do for some reason. So we're going to evaluate that, as well," Sexton added.

Just under five months before Pike's scheduled execution, Tennessee failed to establish IV access for triple-murderer Tony Carruthers. The execution was called off and Gov. Lee granted Carruthers a one-year reprieve. No official evidence supports Sexton's claim that Carruthers purposely dehydrated himself before the execution attempt.

TRUMP WAR ON LGBTQ+ RIGHTS

Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate in South Carolina

Raquel Coronell Uribe

Mon, October 5, 2026 


Democratic Senate candidate Annie Andrews speaks at the Spratt Issues Conference in Florence, S.C., on Aug. 22. (Sean Rayford / Getty)

President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur Monday to attack the Democratic nominee for the Senate in South Carolina as he urged voters to back Republican Sen. Darline Graham.

In a Truth Social post, Trump referred to Democratic candidate Annie Andrews three times as "trannie." He said Andrews, who is not transgender, is "not for South Carolina."

"And South Carolina must show, in the upcoming Election, that it is not for her," Trump added

Andrews responded by largely ignoring the insult, saying in a statement first shared with NBC News that she will "work with anyone to put South Carolina first."

"As a mom and a pediatrician, I'm in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina," Andrews said, adding that "lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together."

"If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you," she said.

Graham's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the post by Trump, who often uses insulting nicknames for politicians and officials he dislikes.

Reached for comment on why Trump used the slur, the White House referred NBC News to his social media post.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, blasted Trump's remarks, calling them "the sad, disgusting, pathetic diatribes of a lame duck president with record-low approvals."

"So low, in fact, he's having to campaign in deep red territory in a desperate attempt to shore up support ahead of the midterms," Ramiro Sarmiento, a spokesperson for the organization, said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., condemned Trump's words Monday night, calling his attacks on Andrews "despicable."

"Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who's always put her community first — and she's exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate," Schumer said on X.

Andrews, a physician, has previously said she does not support gender-affirming surgery for minors or transgender athletes' participating in women's sports.

Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, criticized the president for his attack on Andrews, asking voters to "reject politics based on division and hate."

"This is abhorrent. Elections don't have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better," Beasley wrote Monday night on X.

Graham is running to keep her seat after Gov. Henry McMaster appointed her to fill her late brother's seat after Lindsey Graham died in July.

Graham won the Republican primary in a runoff against Rep. Ralph Norman by nearly 5 percentage points. She has leaned heavily on Trump's endorsement to make her case to South Carolina.

While South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifted its rating of the race toward Democrats last month, moving it from "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican."

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com