Log in
The scandal has cast a spotlight on Singapore's success as a chip hub - and a location for alleged illicit trade.
Is Palantir the most toxic company in the world right now? So far this year, it’s been a central plank of the brutal ICE removals of alleged illegal immigrants in the US. Its software was used to bomb a girls’ school in Iran, killing 168 children. Its CEO, Alex Karp, published a “technofascist manifesto” from the company’s X account that accused “some cultures” of being “regressive”.
And through it all, it continued to build the NHS’s Federated Data Platform (FDP), handling the entire nation’s sensitive health data. It’s a £330m contract and it’s now up for renewal. There’s no doubt that Palantir has been twitchily watching as public antipathy has grown. Campaigners, MPs and news outlets – including the Nerve – have raised questions the company has largely refused to answer. Most saliently of all: is it even fit for purpose?
A body of experts say not. And, the killer point: not one but two parliamentary committees have conducted thorough inquiries which resulted in headlines advising the NHS to ditch it.
Palantir has fought back. Louis Mosley, the UK CEO, has attempted to tweet his way through it and, in September, the company splashed out on an expensive new hire: the former deputy leader of the Labour party, the Baron of Wyre Forest otherwise known as Tom Watson.
A consummate political insider who knows the entire Labour leadership and, according to one MP, knows where the bodies are buried, he’s been working his contacts. But behind the scenes, campaigners were confident that – as the deadline on a break clause in February 2027 loomed – the Burnham government would have to reconsider the contract.
Would Burnham really waste his political capital on a widely reviled firm whose Trump-loving co-founder, Peter Thiel, has vocally announced that he believes in neither democracy nor the NHS?
Well, last week, the Financial Times and the Times reported that “people familiar with the matter” have said the NHS will renew, extending the contract for another two years. The reason? Because it would be too “disruptive” to extricate it from the NHS and more time would be needed – exactly the point that campaigners have been making about dependency.
We asked investigative reporters Amaar Chowdhury and Max Colbert, who have been reporting on the company for the Nerve for the past year, to explain exactly what the problems are. Here’s their guide to the nine reasons Palantir should be kicked out of the NHS.
1
Palantir and the NHS are in a codependent relationship
In the corporate world this is known as “vendor lock-in”. High switching costs mean leaving a contract feels expensive and risky, which makes it more likely that the deal will continue.
Palantir’s relationship with the NHS fits this pattern. Its first work with the NHS came during the pandemic, after it was awarded a £1 emergency contract without competition for its Foundry data platform that would later turn into the healthcare service’s largest ever contract at £330m. The Labour MP for York Central, Rachael Maskell, said in the Commons that this represented a pattern, also citing a Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract that “tripled in size to £240m without due process or competition”.
Concerns over vendor lock-in were reiterated this month in the FT’s report that Palantir’s contract was to be maintained, which said that “[a ministerial review] has concluded that it is not practical to replace Palantir’s software within the next four months”.
Healthcare IT analyst Jon Hoeksma, CEO of Future Health Intelligence and former editor of Digital Health, told the Nerve: “It will likely take a significant amount of work, beginning now, to extricate the NHS FDP from Palantir.”
Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Commons science and technology committee, told the Nerve: "If, as reported, the government requires another two years to extricate itself from this contract, that shows a degree of vendor lock-in which raises grave doubts about the government's ability to deliver competitive, value-for-money digital services.”
2
The FDP’s benefits haven’t been verified
Reporting by Democracy for Sale reveals that Palantir’s FDP is significantly slower at analysing data than the existing tools. “Processing time is reported as taking 4-5 minutes compared to 30 seconds [in the current system]”, according to NHS England briefings obtained by reporters. These internal documents reportedly label the platform as “slow and clunky” with a “poor user experience”.
Likewise, in response to a series of freedom of information requests filed by health campaigning group Medact, several other trusts have asserted that the system offers no clear benefits over existing technology. NHS Dorset integrated care board, for example, said that there was “no operational value or benefit” over existing tools when explaining why it had not adopted the FDP.
Palantir’s position is that the trusts and boards that have rejected the FDP are a fringe group. The firm’s senior vice-president and social media spokesperson, former Labour minister Tom Watson, cited NHS England figures suggesting that “137 [trusts] are already reporting benefits” from using the platform.
However, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has stated that these performance figures cannot be used to “draw conclusions about cause and effect, as other variables have not been controlled for.” Their investigation concluded that statistical teams at NHS England did not clear that data for public use before it was published. This week the Guardian revealed the list of 137 “benefiting” trusts had been removed from NHS England’s website.
In July, the body stated that, going forward, “any figures cited by ministers… [should be] communicated in a clear, accurate manner”. NHS England CEO Jim Mackey now plans to have Palantir clear their statements with his team, though even he admits that this could be difficult to enforce legally.
Watson’s response to the OSR acknowledged that the company has yet to publish a controlled study about the FDP’s benefits. “It’s fair enough”, he said: “Hospitals using our software are reporting better results. But hospitals are complicated places and there might be other things affecting those results. So the regulator is right to urge caution.”
3
There are alternatives, whatever Palantir says
A commonly deployed defence of Palantir’s FDP is that there are no suitable or sovereign alternatives. “No UK-based platform exists at this scale or capability today”, Palantir UK CEO Louis Mosley claimed in his defence of the firm in the Telegraph in June this year.
But these bold claims are not necessarily backed up with evidence. NHS Greater Manchester integrated care board, for example, has stated that its in-house Analytics and Data Science Platform (ADSP) “exceeds anything the FDP currently offers”, albeit “in a care board setting, not across the NHS” as with the FDP.
According to Hoeksma, suitable competitive platforms include Quantexa, Snowflake, and Emrys Health’s Afon.
Onwurah says: “The government needs to act urgently to build and procure credible domestic alternatives, increase competition and reduce this dependency, to ensure the UK has control and sovereignty over the technology underpinning one of our most important public services."
Entrance to the Department of Health and Social Care, November 2026, with an intervention by the campaign group 38 Degrees.
4
Two cross-party select committees want it halted
In July, the health and social care committee urged the government to cut its ties to Palantir, citing concerns over data security, doubts about the FDP’s efficacy, and the availability of alternative solutions. The committee recommended that the break clause be activated not only because of the “serious mistrust” of Palantir’s product, but also because of the contested and overstated claims of its benefits. Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, chair of the committee, said on its behalf that the government’s arguments for maintaining the FDP had “unravelled”.
Commenting to the Nerve about the recent reports that Palantir’s contract would be maintained, Moran said: "The government must be transparent and publish evidence on which it based this decision, so that we can judge whether sufficient consideration was given to the concerns we raised about the FDP’s usage and effectiveness, and the impact on public trust.”
Responding to the committee's concerns to reporters, a Palantir spokesperson said: “Palantir software is helping to deliver better patient care, including 110,000 additional operations to date, a 15% reduction in discharge delays and a 6.8% increase in patients finding out whether they need cancer treatment within 28 days.”
In addition, the science, innovation, and technology committee warned in June that Palantir’s role in healthcare presented an "unacceptable point of weakness”.
Onwurah, chair of the committee, told the Nerve: “My committee has repeatedly called for the 2027 break clause in Palantir's Federated Data Platform contract with the NHS to be exercised. The NHS should not be so reliant on a single US-based supplier for its digital infrastructure.”
Palantir maintains that it was appointed "in line with public contract regulations" and that the NHS retains full control of the data.
Nerve investigation, April 2026
5
Palantir hired former NHS officials as it won government contracts
Bloomberg reported that Watson wrote to his New Labour-era ministerial colleague Yvette Cooper, now the health secretary, urging her to keep the FDP and arguing that Palantir “helps build Britain’s sovereign technological capability”. The decision to extend will be made by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), headed by Cooper, to whom Watson extended his “warmest wishes”.
As previously revealed by the Nerve, Palantir recruited 32 UK government and public sector officials, from the NHS, MoD and other departments – including at least five senior figures from the NHS – while securing lucrative government contracts. The practice was considered part of a “revolving door”, posing an “acute risk” of corruption, according to transparency experts. When these claims were put to them, Palantir said: “We entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy”.
Recently the Guardian revealed that Palantir had lobbied ministers to add NHS GP records to the FDP. WhatsApp messages between former health minister Zubir Ahmed and Louis Mosley demonstrate Palantir encouraging the minister to “get out ahead of” the “political” opposition, despite the firm telling reporters that it has “always been clear that it is for the government to decide how they roll the software out”. This week the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Cressida Dick, former head of the Metropolitan police, has been a paid Palantir advisor since September 2025.
6
The costs exceed the benefits
Last year, Dr Marc Farr, chair of the Chief Data and Analytical Officer Network (CDAON), warned healthcare chiefs that “adoption costs often outweigh the costs of technology itself”, continuing that cost benefits for the FDP need “to be made very clear before [the NHS] can commit – especially with many systems under significant financial stress”.
In the most recent financial year, figures published by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista) reveal that the true cost of the FDP is closer to £1.1bn, reflecting “increased delivery at scale”, and that forecast benefits have fallen from £2.5bn to £808m.
Farr’s letter to the NHS also lays bare the significant existing investments that NHS England has made regarding patient data. “Transitioning to FDP raises concerns about potential disruptions and the risk of losing existing functionality and value,” according to the CDAON chief.
Peter Thiel speaking at the Oxford Union in January 2023.
7
Palantir builds tools for deportations and war
Palantir’s early funding was delivered through In-Q-Tel, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) venture capital arm. Since then, it has picked up controversial work in national security and defence for clients in the US, UK, Europe and Israel.
One such tool for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ImmigrationOS, is used to fast-track the deportation of undocumented migrants. Amnesty International found this enables “constant monitoring, surveillance and assessments” of people using social media intelligence, including students protesting against Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
Palantir has admitted that the company works with the Israeli military, providing services for “war-related missions”. When confronted by a protester at an event in the US, Palantir CEO Alex Karp was told the firm's technology kills Palestinians. He replied: “Mostly terrorists, that’s true.”
The US air force has also contracted Palantir for its airstrike targeting platform, Project Maven. It was used earlier this year to mistakenly target a girls’ school in Minab, Iran. Over 120 children were killed by the US military in the strike. The US Department of Defense acknowledged that the military’s over-reliance on the AI targeting system had played a part in this tragedy.
Palantir has said that it “is not responsible for the underlying data nor identifying intelligence deficiencies” in this instance. Although the firm may not be directly responsible for the airstrike, questions must be asked as to why it has allowed its software to be used as part of an automated kill-chain with little human oversight.
It’s interesting that Mosley has criticised campaigners and doctors for supposedly choosing “ideology over patient interest” regarding its NHS deal. Shortly after the conflict in Gaza began, the firm took out a full-page advert in the New York Times stating that “Palantir stands with Israel”, itself an overtly ideological position and an unprecedented move for a military contractor.
Palantir has previously defended its position on work with immigration enforcement, saying that it has worked with ICE under both the Democrat and Republican administrations.
8
Its co-founder is openly hostile to the NHS
Palantir’s co-founder Peter Thiel has been an outspoken critic of the NHS. Speaking at the Oxford Union in 2023, he likened the British public’s affection for the health service as a case of “Stockholm syndrome”.
Speaking in no uncertain terms, Thiel said at the event: “Highways create traffic jams, welfare creates poverty, schools make people dumb and the NHS makes people sick”. He has called for the health service to be ripped up from the ground to “start over”.
Palantir has tried to distance itself from those comments, and has taken the position that Thiel was making them as a “private individual”, while Mosley defended the difference between the opinions of one man (albeit the co-founder and chair of the board) from the “corporate mandate that Palantir has” to provide a service.
9
Palantir has sued journalists and the mayor’s office – and paid influencers to attack campaigners
Palantir recently brought a lawsuit against Swiss outlet Republik, after journalists working with the publication revealed that the company had been rejected by the country’s government. Speaking at the time, the journalists suggested that the aggressive response was because it was “the first time [anyone] has published a story about Palantir that has a failure narrative”. Palantir ultimately failed in its retaliatory bid, losing on 22 of the 23 points it brought against the outlet.
Similarly, in the UK, Palantir brought a lawsuit against the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) in London, after it cancelled the direct award to the company of a £50m contract with the Metropolitan police. The company objected to Mopac taking Palantir’s “values and ethics” into account. Ultimately, both parties settled and paid their own costs in the case, with Palantir free to bid in a future tender process.
Nerve report, 29 September 2026
The company hasn’t just weaponised legal mechanisms. In a 2023 scandal, it was revealed via leaked emails that Palantir, working alongside Conservative party-linked PR firm Topham Guerin, had engaged in a clandestine initiative to undermine the work of campaign group Good Law Project (GLP), which had launched action against the FDP deal.
They hired a marketing firm to pay influencers to discredit the organisation, telling those that accepted the offer to “keep the brand confidential and not mention Palantir”. The plot, however, unravelled when the marketing firm contacted a co-signatory of the “No Palantir in the NHS” campaign. Details of Palantir’s smear campaign were then disclosed to GLP, which published them in full. The company declined to comment on its actions.
More recently, as reported by the Nerve, Watson sent a letter to MP Clive Lewis, who has criticised the company, warning him against continuing and outlining the depth of information it had on his activities, in what Lewis described at a fringe event at Labour conference as an “implicit threat”.
Other MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn, Rachael Maskell and Shockat Adam, have received similar letters. Corybn believes these letters were sent “to intimidate its critics into silence”, while Maskell believes there “there is a reason as to why Palantir has paid close attention to the scrutiny”.
With regard to the letters, the company responded: “There are a great deal of incorrect claims about Palantir circulating online. When politicians – sometimes inadvertently – amplify these falsehoods, they risk misleading the public. The purpose of these letters was to set the record straight. If politicians continue to repeat false claims, we will continue to correct them.”
When contacted by the Nerve, the Department of Health and Social Care did not respond to a request for comment, neither confirming or denying the government’s plans regarding keeping Palantir’s system for another two years, or giving details of any search for a "sovereign" alternative.
Palantir did not respond to a request for comment.
The Nerve is a fearless, independent media title launched by five former Guardian / Observer journalists: investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, editors Sarah Donaldson, Jane Ferguson and Imogen Carter and creative director Lynsey Irvine. We cover culture, politics and tech, brought to you in twice weekly newsletters on Tuesdays and Fridays (sign up here). We rely on funding from our community, so please also consider joining us as a paying member. You can read more about our mission here.
Russell Brand arriving at Southwark Crown Court on 4 November. Photo: Leon Neal / Getty
I never met Russell Brand. But I knew enough about him to be sure, when I published my book Living Dolls back in 2010, that he was a clear example of the misogynist culture that was poisoning women’s lives.
I was inspired to write Living Dolls by a teenage girl who wrote to me lamenting that she felt like the only person she knew who objected to being harassed in clubs and exposed to pornography by her boyfriends. In it, I went deep into how a culture that dehumanised women and reduced them to sexualised objects was being maintained from top to bottom of society.
Brand was just one example of that. For instance, I wrote about how he boasted about paying for sex in Thailand when he was just 17. He said that he “fucked loads of prostitutes… never wore a condom” and that this experience had made him “comfortable around women” and “confident about sex”. The exploitation that so often underlies sex work was completely overlooked by Brand, as it was so often in the culture of the time.
I also wrote about Brand’s attitudes towards professional women, quoting a writer who went to interview him and then heard him discussing her breasts on air, and what it would be like to have sex with her. “It was out of order,” she said at the time, “and reductive: woman, ergo piece of meat, fair game, punchline, non-person.”
This went to the heart of the culture I and other women were trying to resist. We could see that despite decades of campaigning for equality, women were constantly coming up against attitudes that saw them as less than human, that only valued them as sexualised objects. And we could see that it had become particularly hard for women to dissent because these attitudes were so often presented as unexceptional, ordinary, as simply banter. They were being dripped into society all the time through mainstream comedy and magazines and television. It had become very, very difficult to stand up against this misogyny that dressed itself up as light entertainment.
The conviction of Russell Brand last week exposed that misogynist culture for what many of us had been arguing it was for so long – a culture that genuinely harms and hurts women. In the trial, we heard the evidence of the assaults and coercion and rape that lay behind that thin veneer of boasts and banter.
Russell Brand in Edinburgh in 2010 promoting Booky Wooky 2. Photo: Jeff J Mitchell / Getty
So I pay tribute to all the women who have been standing up against Brand and other men over the last decade. Rosamund Urwin of the Sunday Times did amazing work in exposing the reality behind Brand’s behaviour and bringing women together to speak out – and for her trouble, she had Brand’s barrister tell her “you fucked it” outside court.
But we should not mistake the shifts we are seeing for victory. Not yet.
The culture that I was exposing in the 2000s had certain characteristics, such as Page Three and lads’ magazines, that seem wildly old-fashioned now. In mainstream comedy and television and music, things have shifted, and broadcasters like the BBC and ITV are being more careful about the messages they put out. That’s not just about Brand’s downfall, of course, it’s also about ongoing revelations about others – and there are a number of names swirling around the internet, as well as the depressing stories about David Walliams that were finally published last week.
But even if it’s being pushed out of certain spaces, misogyny has not gone away. It has found other places where it can mutate and grow, other methods it can use to grip men’s minds, other ways to dehumanise women and to harm them.
When I decided to go back into the fray with my recent book, Feminism for a World on Fire, I welcomed the fact that some reckonings with sexism are taking place in mainstream culture, and that certain men are being exposed. But at exactly the same time, I found that there is a much darker misogyny being nurtured in many places today. It may no longer be beamed into our sitting rooms through entertainment shows made by big broadcasters. But it is being beamed to every boy and man in the world through social media platforms and through powerful influencers who have far greater reach than even Brand in his prime.
And it is being protected by the most powerful elites in the world. Donald Trump himself still sits in the White House despite all the accusations against him, and his power protects others and helps to ensure that the new misogyny goes unchallenged. The tech elites, too, are deeply entwined with this new misogyny. And that means that those who defend the kind of attitudes that Brand helped to make mainstream no longer need the BBC or Channel 4 to communicate them with millions of others: they can hang out on X or Substack or YouTube, where men with tens of thousands of followers are earning money from publicly throwing mud over Brand’s victims and questioning the verdict. Russell Brand has received public support from Elon Musk and his account is still active on X. Indeed, far from challenging this misogyny, those who run these media platforms are constantly amplifying it, and monetising it.
So I want to celebrate the courage of the women who have shown up for one another and for justice in the 16 years since I first wrote about Brand. But I also want to recognise there is too far to go before we can declare any kind of victory. The doll's house is turning out to be a real house of horrors, and it’s time to burn it down.
Natasha Walter is an author and the founder of Women for Refugee Women. Her most recent book, Feminism for a World on Fire, is published by Virago; you can buy it at the Nerve Bookshop at a discounted price. Living Dolls can also be ordered from the bookshop, and should be back in stock soon
The Nerve is a fearless, independent media title launched by five former Guardian / Observer journalists: investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, editors Sarah Donaldson, Jane Ferguson and Imogen Carter and creative director Lynsey Irvine. We cover culture, politics and tech, brought to you in twice weekly newsletters on Tuesdays and Fridays (sign up here). We rely on funding from our community, so please also consider joining us as a paying member. You can read more about our mission here.
Following his public disputes with California authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Elon Musk personally moved to Texas, outside of Austin, in 2020.
Over the next six years, he doubled down on the Lone Star State. In 2021, Musk increasingly focused the Starship program in South Texas, urging SpaceX employees to move there and work on the company's future. In March of that year, he began using the name Starbase to describe the production and launch facilities near the Rio Grande River.
In 2023, he built a massive factory east of Austin to manufacture customer terminals and other electronics for the Starlink program. In July 2024, he announced that SpaceX would relocate its corporate headquarters from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas. He cited California's regulatory and political environment as the motivating factor.
Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
Science was on the ballot across the United States in Tuesday’s midterm elections. On federal, state, and municipal levels, hundreds of people with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine ran for office. Americans also voted on measures related to conservation projects, pollutant abatement, healthcare access, and environmental reviews.
On the basis of their published platforms, the Democratic Party prioritizes environmental and climate mitigation policies more than the Republican Party; with Democrats regaining majorities in both houses of Congress, many science and environmental advocates hope to see legislation that could reverse some of the changes to federal science and environmental policy over the past 2 years.
Here are a few of the midterm outcomes that might shape the future of science and the environment in the United States.
House Science Committee
Because the next House of Representatives will be controlled by Democrats, the current ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), will become the committee’s chair. The position is currently held by Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), a strong Trump supporter.
With Lofgren assuming leadership and new members reconstituting the committee, it may have more power to reverse some of the Trump administration’s changes to science policy.
Those changes have “really taken a sledgehammer to the foundation of science research and innovation, and we’re going to need to try and put the pieces back together,” Lofgren told FYI, the news arm of the American Institute of Physics.
Lofgren and other Democrats told FYI that in a Democrat-controlled Congress, the House Science Committee would focus on stopping a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget to make sweeping changes to the federal grantmaking process. Democrats also said the committee would put science officials, such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., under greater scrutiny for their actions.
The Republican-to-Democrat flip in the House also means that chairmanship of the House’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, which covers NASA, will switch from Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R–Fla.) to current ranking member Rep. Valerie Foushee (D–N.C). Industry sources expect Democrats to prioritize combating proposed cuts in NASA science programs and closures of facilities at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
“One of the few issues in Washington I can proudly say we can work together on is space,” Haridopolos said at the Space Economy Summit in Orlando, Fla., on 29 October. “It’s something Republicans and Democrats have locked arms about and really believe is the future of our country.”
Congressional and Statewide Seats
Incumbent Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper (D) retained his seat. Hickenlooper, a former geologist, has been an advocate for science while in office.
In Michigan’s 7th District William Lawrence (D) challenged incumbent Rep. Thomas Barrett (R) and is projected to win (with more than 95% of votes counted as of publication). Lawrence is an environmental activist and a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-driven climate action organization. He ran on a platform to protect Michigan’s natural areas from data center encroachment, to restore wetlands and rivers, and to hold polluters accountable.
The ongoing recovery from Hurricane Helene was among the top concerns for voters in North Carolina. After the 2022 disaster, President Trump tapped Republican Sen. Michael Whatley to coordinate disaster recovery efforts, calling him the “Helene Recovery Czar.” North Carolinians have been generally displeased with his efforts, and responded by voting in Democrat Roy Cooper to replace him. And in the state’s 11th district, which includes Asheville and 16 rural counties that were hardest hit by Helene, voters chose Democrat Jamie Ager, an environmental scientist and fourth-generation North Carolina farmer, to replace one-term Rep. Chuck Edwards (R), who withdrew from the race in August.
“I hate to sound totally partisan, but I know that there’s one party that’s trying to do something about climate change, and there’s one party that is denying it,” one NC-11 voter told Grist. “And so, I vote accordingly.”
In California, two Democrats were on the ballot for the role of insurance commissioner, a position which regulates everything from disaster insurance and worker’s compensation to auto, life, pet, and some types of health insurance. It’s an important role in a state wracked by wildfires that have threatened public health and been worsened by climate change. As of Wednesday morning, the election was still too close to call.
While State Senator Ben Allen ran on the platform that a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan was the way to improve the availability and affordability of disaster insurance, former San Francisco supervisor Jane Kim proposed something more radical: natural disaster insurance for all. If elected, Kim has said she would divert insurance premiums homeowners already pay into a public program that automatically covers all homes in the state. On her website, Kim argued that “a public system would address the climate disaster instead of avoiding it.” Allen’s website argued that Kim’s plan is too risky, threatening to “bankrupt the state and send costs even higher.”
State-Level Ballot Issues
Voters in Rhode Island elected to establish the $55 million Environment and Watershed Protection and Development Bond. The bond will distribute funds to improve and add to statewide water infrastructure, restore and protect the Narragansett Bay watershed, and preserve agricultural land and natural areas for recreation.
Massachusetts voted to establish the Nature for All Fund. The new law will direct into the fund 50% of the tax revenue collected from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses before 1 July 2028 (and 100% of the tax collected thereafter). It also establishes a 15-member board consisting of state officials and members of the public, including representatives of underserved communities, Indigenous peoples, and at least one person with expertise or experience in natural resource conservation. The board will direct the use of those funds to natural resource conservation projects across the state.
In Arkansas, voters passed a measure allowing the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission to issue up to $500 million in bonds for water infrastructure projects, including water treatment, pollution abatement, irrigation, flood control, and wetland conservation. This reflects a federal-state infrastructure partnership that has grown since the 2021 Infrastructure and Investment Act.
In Michigan, voters chose to support Proposal 2, which, among other changes, amends Michigan’s campaign finance laws to prohibit some electric and gas utilities, as well as utility-funded political action committees (PACs) from making campaign contributions. The proposal also bans people with “substantial connections” to such utilities from running for or holding offices that impact their businesses.
The ballot initiative was led by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, a coalition of various advocacy groups, including the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. The coalition hopes that Proposal 2 will make it easier for state lawmakers to regulate these large utilities and work towards clean energy implementation.
Monopoly utility companies “have opposed commonsense clean energy solutions in the Legislature, like community solar and removing unnecessary caps for rooftop solar,” Nick Dodge, senior director of programs at the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, told Eos in an email. “By putting the power back in the hands of Michiganders, not powerful corporate interests, Michigan can pursue common-sense clean energy solutions that bring down energy costs, improve reliability and service, and benefit Michigan communities.”
Related:
• Democrats Outline Priorities for Next Congress’s House Science Committee
• Midterm election to test bipartisan support for NASA
• Hurricane Helene haunts the midterms in North Carolina
• Michigan Utility Interests Spend $215K to Fight Political Spending Ban
• Amendment 82, which would add “right to natural gas” to Colorado Constitution, appears unlikely to pass
• Get Involved: AGU Science Policy Action Center
In Colorado, an amendment to add the right to purchase and sell natural gas to the state constitution seemed unlikely to pass as of Wednesday morning, with only 46% in favor and 55% required for passage. If passed, Amendment 82 would make Colorado the first state with the constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas.
Also as of Wednesday morning, 54.1% of Californians had voted against a proposal to amend the California Environmental Quality Act, with 57% of the expected votes tallied. Proposition 45 proposed expediting environmental review for most housing, transportation, water, and health projects. The proposal would limit the duration of environmental reviews to one year and would require courts to resolve litigation related to reviews within 270 calendar days. Proponents argued that the bill would cut red tape and make California more affordable, while opponents, such as Deja McCauley of Physicians for Social Responsibility, argued that the initiative would mean “more toxic pollution in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on.”
—Kimberly M. S. Cartier (@astrokimcartier.bsky.social), Staff Writer; Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer; Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Deputy Editor
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.
Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.
So much more than a vote for congress.
Democrats have won the majority in both House and Senate. Vote counts are still ongoing. DW takes a look at who voted Republican, who voted Democrat and what it all means.
Marvellous
Next Page of Stories