TheShack.jpg

(The Center Square) - The nation's first data center on public land was approved for development, but the Nevada site has now been put on hold for further review following public backlash.

The Townsite Data Center, proposed for development on federal Bureau of Land Management property outside of Boulder City, Nevada, used plans for a solar farm to skip the environmental review process. After the public and environmental groups pushed back, the BLM asked to rescind its approval.

“The environmental effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action are similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] document,” read the BLM’s Decision Record from June 26, approving the project’s change from a solar farm to data center. 

The BLM decision, approved by Las Vegas Field Office Manager Bruce Sillitoe, allowed the Townsite data center to avoid its own environmental review.

The unusual move to get approval for the project comes amid the federal government’s effort to build out the industry following a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump.

The BLM cited this executive order in the project’s July announcement. “The approval supports federal efforts to accelerate permitting for data center infrastructure and is consistent with Executive Order 14318 Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure.”4

But on Sept. 21, the BLM changed directions and asked for the project’s approval to be withdrawn.

“Regarding environmental review, a data center and a solar project can have very different types of impacts,” BLM spokesperson Don Manuszewski told The Center Square Thursday. “Solar projects primarily affect land disturbance, habitat and visual resources, while data centers involve additional considerations such as noise, backup power generation, water or cooling systems, and more frequent operational activity.”

Manuszewski added that the BLM is currently assessing whether the environmental impact for the solar project is sufficient for the data center proposal. She also said there is no final timeline for the project’s completion.

The change comes after two environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, appealed the BLM’s project approval and successfully requested a stay on construction while the appeal was under consideration by the Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

“Sierra Club does not support data center development on federal public land,” said Olivia Tanager, Sierra Club Toiyabe chapter director.

“In all instances of data center proposals, we do want the strictest guardrails possible to eliminate any harm to natural resources or communities, and in some cases that means saying that a data center does not belong in a specific location," Tanager told The Center Square in an email Thursday. 

Megan Ortiz, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity’s Great Basin Program, based in Las Vegas, helped draft the IBLA appeal. On Thursday, she told The Center Square via email that as the first case of data center approval on public lands, the Townsite project had national significance. 

“What happens here could set a precedent for how we manage public lands across the country, how we evaluate potential harms, and how projects like this get approved in the first place,” said Ortiz.

The Townsite project was initially set to be built on Boulder City property, but public outcry and opposition from the city government saw the project move to the nearby federal lands. 

The decision has not calmed public opinion on the project. 

“Nothing in the BLM’s motion to remand commits the BLM to conduct an environmental assessment, involve the public, or designate the City as a cooperating agency, and its approval would lift the stay that is currently in place,” Boulder City spokesperson Lisa LaPlante told The Center Square over email. By "stay," she was referring to the BLM's decision to rescind its approval.

LaPlante added that the city would be filing opposition to the BLM motion by a court-set deadline of Oct. 5. 

Skylar Opportunities LLC, affiliated with the Townsite data center development company TS2 Investments LLC, did not respond to a request for comment from The Center Square.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court should do its job and decide on the merits in a consequential climate case before it, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr said Thursday.

Justices will hear arguments Monday in Suncor v. Boulder County Commissioners, one of dozens of cases filed in state courts by Democrat-run state and local governments against oil and gas companies in an attempt to make them pay billions of dollars in damages related to climate change.

Energy worker advocacy group Power the Future released a report this week that warned if plaintiffs win major monetary awards against the oil and gas industry, gas prices would increase by about 41 cents a gallon. Others have argued that billion dollar verdicts would bankrupt the industry.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito recused himself this week from hearing arguments in the Suncor case because of his stock holdings in the energy industry. 

Energy industry advocates have called for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case. They argue Kagan is biased in favor of Boulder County and climate science policies. Kagan wrote a forward in the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine's Fourth Edition of the "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence," published in December 2025.

The manual referenced the "attribution theory," a disputed model used to posit scientific modeling as attributable to the effects of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. 

Barr said Thursday that Alito's recusal clouds what the Supreme Court could do in the Boulder case, adding that Kagan needs to make her own decision on whether to recuse herself.

• The Center Square reporter Andrew Rice contributed to this report.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service released guidance on the federal Education Freedom Tax Credit, giving states more details on the rules and regulations intended to protect scholarship funds from fraud and abuse.

Currently, 30 states have opted into the Trump administration's school choice initiative, while 20 states and Washington, D.C., have not. 

The program will take effect Jan. 1 and supports K–12 education expenses, including qualified elementary and secondary education expenses such as tuition and tutoring.

The Department of the Treasury clarified that the $1,700 cap on donations is per individual, and married couples filing jointly may donate up to $3,400. Taxpayers can contribute to any qualified Scholarship Granting Organization, regardless of where they live.

Several Democratic governors, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have said they were awaiting federal rules and regulations before deciding whether to opt into the program.

“This is a long-awaited step and a reason many Democratic governors have said they won’t join until they have official guidelines from Treasury,” Savannah Newhouse, the  Education Department's press secretary, told The Center Square. 

The Center Square reached out to Hochul and Newsom for comment but did not receive a response.  

The rules were released in the Federal Register on Oct. 1, 2026. The first rule establishes temporary IRS requirements for implementing the new federal tax credit for donations to SGOs and creates a framework for how the scholarship tax credit program will run. 

The second rule provides further detail on the tax credit program, including who is eligible and donation caps. It also proposes rules for verifying household income and eligible educational expenses.

The Department of the Treasury and the IRS state that the program could support almost 700 SGOs with over 11 million taxpayers generating $26 billion in annual contributions by 2030. 

“Treasury’s guidance marks another major step toward making the Education Freedom Tax Credit a reality for families across America,” Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, said in a statement. “Allowing married couples filing jointly to contribute up to $3,400 will increase the ability for Americans to support scholarships and strengthen educational opportunities for children.”

(The Center Square) - A 51-year-old Department of Energy employee from Richland, Wash., was arrested Thursday and charged with attempting to provide material support and resources to the Houthis, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Ashton Hamed Ellaboudy was arrested Thursday morning and is scheduled to make his initial appearance before a federal magistrate judge at 11 a.m. Friday in Richland, the DOJ said in a press release.

“As alleged, a U.S. government employee traveled overseas and used his specialized expertise in an attempt to aid the Houthis, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization backed by Iran,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Eisenberg in the release.

“Additionally, Ellaboudy acquired materials for the construction of explosive material and drones capable of delivering these explosives. These allegations are so deeply disturbing that they almost defy imagination.”

The arrest follows an FBI investigation that included a search warrant at a residence in the 1000 block of Oxford Avenue in Richland on Thursday.

According to a federal affidavit filed Sept. 30 in the Eastern District of Washington, Ellaboudy is accused of attempting to provide personnel, services, expert advice and assistance, and electronic components to Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis.

The investigation began after the FBI received information that Ellaboudy had purchased chemicals and components that investigators said can be used in the construction of homemade explosives, according to the release.

According to the affidavit, purchases made between November 2024 and February 2025 included nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, potassium nitrate, aluminum powder, sulfur powder, firework igniter parts and other chemicals and components. Investigators also identified purchases of drone parts.

The investigation also examined Ellaboudy’s travel to the Middle East.

In September 2025, Ellaboudy traveled from Richland through Los Angeles and Doha to Salalah, Oman. According to the affidavit, investigators later determined that his cellphone traveled near the Oman-Yemen border.

The DOJ said Ellaboudy used an official passport previously issued to him during his employment with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cross from Oman into Yemen.

When he returned to the United States, Ellaboudy told Customs and Border Protection officers that his overseas travel had been for official government business, court documents show.

His DOE supervisor later told investigators that Ellaboudy had no authorized official government travel to the region and that the supervisor was unaware of any reason that would have required such a trip.

The affidavit further states that during a recorded conversation in October 2025, Ellaboudy said he paid approximately $1,400 to be smuggled across the Oman-Yemen border and wanted to travel to Sanaa.

The investigation later focused on efforts to provide technical assistance to an undercover agent whom Ellaboudy thought was a member of Ansarallah, documents allege.

According to the DOJ, Ellaboudy communicated with an FBI confidential source who purported to be working for a Houthi “Colonel.”

The DOJ said Ellaboudy provided electrical engineering expertise to help test and modify solar power generators and communications equipment that was purportedly intended for use in Yemen.

He also provided guidance on how power and communications systems could be integrated, produced schematics and diagrams and researched additional equipment that could improve the communications system, according to court documents.

Ellaboudy recognized solar power and radio communications equipment shown to him by the confidential source and offered to test the equipment because of his experience working with solar power systems, according to the affidavit. 

The DOE Hanford Field Office said the investigation did not directly involve the site.

“This matter did not involve an attempt to harm the Hanford Site or its workforce, and at no time was there a threat to the safety or security of the site,” Hanford Field Office Manager Ray Geimer said in the DOJ announcement.

The DOJ said the charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison if Ellaboudy is convicted.

The charges contained in the criminal complaint are allegations. Ellaboudy is presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

He could not be reached for comment.

(The Center Square) – With Americans questioning the hundreds of thousands of AI-enhanced surveillance cameras across the country, one Republican lawmaker is introducing legislation to curb the worst abuses of the technology.

The Stop Flock Abuse Act, which Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., announced he will release, targets the policies of Automated License Plate Reader camera providers like Flock Safety, Axon Enterprise, and Motorola Solutions.

Critics of the rapid rollout of ALPR cameras say Congress and regulatory agencies haven't kept up with the rapid advancement of AI technology over the past decade. This failure has enabled private companies to undertake activities that they argue would likely violate the Constitution if committed by the federal government.

“AI-powered cameras produced by Flock and its competitors are tracking and creating digital footprints of everyday Americans — a nightmare for individual liberties unless Congress enacts meaningful rules and accountability,” Hawley said in a statement.

“That’s why I’m introducing the Stop Flock Abuse Act to establish basic safeguards for AI-powered cameras and protect Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights. Law-abiding Americans should not be treated like criminals.”

Among other measures, the bill forbids local governments from selling or sharing data to non-governmental third parties, requires agencies to impose a written approval process to log each search, and mandates regular audits of those logs.

The latter requirements are meant to prevent further “rogue” searches, documented cases of police officers and other Flock clients using databases to stalk and harass individuals.

Currently, Flock “does not maintain a single consolidated count of confirmed customer misuse,” according to the company’s recent letter to Hawley.

Flock currently allows clients to store data for as long as they choose. The Stop Flock Abuse Act would compel agencies to permanently delete driver data after ten days unless the data is vital to an active criminal investigation.

The bill would also prohibit ALPR networks from using facial recognition technology. Flock already allows users to search for people in images taken by its non-license plate reader cameras, although the searches “must be related to elements visible in footage, such as shirt color, glasses, etc., not a biometric template.”

However, Flock hasn’t ruled out incorporating biometric data technology in the future. Notably, the company has applied for a patent that would permit the tracking of individuals and allow searches of individual persons in its database.

As of September 2026, at least 138,000 cameras with ALPR technology have been mapped across the U.S. by independent organizations like Finding Flock. About 120,000 of those cameras belong to Flock.

Flock Safety did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment on whether it supported the Stop Flock Abuse Act.

Flock updated its privacy, accountability and other safeguards in August, according to a post from the company.

"These changes reflect years of work and deliberation," the company said in the post. "They are not the end of that work, but simply the continuation of our commitment to both safety and privacy. We are not perfect, so we will keep listening, improving, and building a better standard for public safety technology together."

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear significant cases on climate change, consumer protection and discrimination in its upcoming term.

The first day of arguments at the high court is Oct. 5. The court will hear Suncor Energy v. Boulder, a case challenging whether state and local governments can utilize tort laws to seek billions in damages against energy companies over alleged contributions to climate change.

“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” lawyers for Boulder County, Colorado, wrote in a brief to the high court.

U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said he is concerned about the case’s implications to regulate oil and gas production in his state and across the country. He pointed to the vast array of oil and natural gas resources in North Dakota and Alaska that would be regulated if the high court rules in favor of Boulder, Colorado.

“It is anti-capitalism," Cramer said. “You simply can’t have a patchwork of laws determining what other states do in their own state.”

Cramer said environmental activists who file lawsuits against large energy companies also seek to do damage through the lawsuit’s discovery process. He said the discovery process can be expensive and painful for an energy company involved in a lawsuit.

Cramer touted bipartisan permitting reform legislation in the U.S. Senate to reduce the timeframe for discovery in high profile climate lawsuits. The legislation would require a lawsuit to be brought against energy companies in 150 days, rather than current timeframes, which are up to six years.

With more than 30 lawsuits playing out across the country that contain similar legal arguments to Suncor v. Boulder, these requirements would have a significant effect on future climate litigation.

“The domino effect is more about the process than it is an actual successful litigation outcome,” Cramer said.

On the other side, a bipartisan group of former senior U.S. government climate experts have asked the Supreme Court to allow Boulder to hold energy companies accountable for local damage caused by climate change, according to a Yale Law School article.

The officials filed an amicus brief arguing that, in the absence of congressional approval, the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from climate regulation does not constitute foreign affairs lawmaking sufficient to block Colorado courts from hearing Boulder’s lawsuit, according to the article.

“Amici have devoted their careers to building the nation’s climate policy through the channels the Constitution prescribes — statutes enacted by Congress, regulations promulgated through lawful process, treaties and executive agreements, and diplomacy sustained across administrations of both parties,” the brief said.

“That experience confirms what this Court’s precedents require: that displacement of state law requires an affirmative act of federal lawmaking, not the absence of coherent policy.”

Cramer acknowledged that Congress could play a role in clarifying the power of states granted by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The two pieces of legislation are expected to feature prominently in climate activist arguments against the energy companies on Monday.

However, Cramer said he is optimistic that the high court will acknowledge the far reaching implications of climate litigation in the Suncor case and prevent future high-profile lawsuits from moving forward.

“This is where interstate commerce really needs to prevail,” Cramer said. “If enough of these things like Suncor get shot down on that basis hopefully more and more of them will be dismissed.”

Salazar v. Paramount Global

The high court will also take up a significant consumer protection case. On Oct. 14, justices on the court will hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case challenging decades-old consumer privacy laws.

Michael Salazar subscribed to Paramount’s online newsletter to view videos. The justices will weigh whether Paramount violated Salazar’s privacy rights by sharing his login information with Facebook and its parent company Meta.

The argument is expected to focus on the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer.” In the legislation drafted by Congress, “consumer” is defined as “a subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.”

The different parties in the argument will discuss whether the laws protections are limited to audiovisual goods and services or all goods.

"The VPPA broadly prohibits a video tape service provider—like Paramount here—from knowingly disclosing 'personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider,'” lawyers for Salazar wrote.

John Beisner, partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, said the Congressional statute does not appear to be as broad as Salazar intends.

“This reading that's being promoted by the petitioner is overly broad and it is presenting some results which are inconsistent with congressional intent,” Beisner said. “This will be the struggle for the court because of the wording of the statute.”

Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia

Justices on the high court will also hear Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia, a dispute over pregnancy discrimination allegations on Nov. 2.

The case focuses on Jasmine Younge, who alleged pregnancy discrimination after she was fired from her job as deputy chief of staff for Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard.

The District Attorney’s office said Younge was a member of Howard’s “personal staff” and exempt from protections against pregnancy discrimination. However, that claim was not included in the District Attorney’s original pleading.

Younge challenged the omission from the District Attorney’s original pleading and argued her firing was prohibited under Title VII. As a member of Howard’s personal staff, however, Younge would be required to file her discrimination complaint through an adjudication process under the Government Employees Rights Act. 

“The critical decisions by Younge that channeled this case into district court had been made in 2019, more than two years before the defendant first asserted that Younge’s claim was not covered by Title VII,” lawyers for Younge wrote in a petition to the high court.

Robert Peck, founder and president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, said the case before the court is due to procedural error in lower court litigation. He said the parties should have clarified the role of pregnancy discrimination sooner.

“The exception built into the statute for a member of the personal staff of the elected official is one of long standing and should have been asserted right away,” Peck said.

The high court will hear these challenges and many more as its term begins on Oct. 5. All of the court’s decisions are expected to be released by June 2027.

(The Center Square) – The Federal Reserve awarded more than $2 billion in construction work on its headquarters renovation without establishing a guaranteed maximum price for the project, the central bank's inspector general found.

The 120-page evaluation, released Wednesday, found no crime. Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote that investigators found no reasonable grounds to believe a federal criminal law had been violated and identified no administrative misconduct.

But the report describes a project the Fed never managed to a number. The Board set an internal limit of $857 million in April 2020 on what it was willing to spend on construction, but never shared it with its construction manager or the outside representative it hired to watch costs on its behalf. The inspector general found the limit was never updated and became ineffective as a control.

Construction costs have more than doubled, from $921 million budgeted in February 2020 to $2.018 billion in the Board's most recently revised construction budget. The total project budget has risen to $2.381 billion.

The findings undercut the case the White House built against former Chairman Jerome Powell. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought objected in July 2025 to rooftop terrace gardens, VIP dining rooms, water features and premium marble. Horowitz concluded those features did not materially contribute to the cost increases. OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

President Donald Trump called for Powell to resign in a post on Truth Social the day the report came out, quoting the inspector general's finding that the Fed had not set a guaranteed maximum price more than four years into construction.

"An absolutely unheard of situation," Trump wrote. He said he asked Attorney General Todd Blanche "to study the report, and make a determination as to what to do," and that Powell should be sued by the government "for either corruption or incompetence" if he does not step down. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Fed takes no appropriation from Congress. It covers its expenses out of its own earnings and sends what is left to the Treasury. In 2021, before the central bank began posting losses, that came to $107.4 billion.

"Spending more on the renovation leaves less money to send," Orphe Divounguy, chief economist of the Quantitative Research Group and a former Zillow economist, told The Center Square. "If government spending and other revenue stay the same, Treasury must borrow more to cover the difference."

Most reserve banks are sending nothing right now. The Fed's weekly balance sheet showed a systemwide deferred asset of $233.1 billion as of Wednesday, earnings the banks must generate before remittances resume. Three banks – Atlanta, St. Louis and Dallas – showed positive remittances due; the other nine did not.

"Additional renovation spending can therefore reduce payments now or delay future payments," Divounguy said. "Either way, Treasury receives less than it otherwise would."

Fed officials told investigators that inflation was a major driver of the increase. Horowitz's report found inflation was clearly a factor but did not account for the scale of the increases, particularly in mechanical, electrical and plumbing work. Two such packages rose 203%, from a $178 million estimate to $539 million awarded, over a period when construction inflation ran about 16%.

Across all four mechanical, electrical and plumbing packages, costs went from an estimated $206 million to $694 million. Applying the 16% rate the inspector general cited to that $206 million baseline produces about $34 million in inflation-driven growth, roughly 7% of the $488 million increase, according to Divounguy's calculation.

"Inflation contributed, but the broad construction inflation benchmark falls far short," he said. "Inflation alone is not a sufficient explanation. The report identifies other contributors but does not quantify their individual effects."

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., said in a statement that he welcomed the report.

"Inflation does not change the Fed's responsibility to manage its resources prudently and be accountable to Congress," he said. "This Committee will continue rigorous oversight to ensure the Fed is transparent and stays focused on its mission."

Internal dashboards reported the project on track for years. The report found the benchmarks were reset each time the budget grew. The budget indicator was flagged at risk for four straight quarters in 2024 while the project overall was still reported on track.

The Fed has turned the project over to the General Services Administration, which announced Thursday that it will serve as project executive. Administrator Edward C. Forst pledged "greater accountability, cost discipline, and effective project management."

In a letter to Horowitz, Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh wrote that the central bank will promptly complete negotiations on a guaranteed maximum price and engage an independent auditor "to verify the accuracy and compliance of all awarded costs to date."

Fed spokesman Eric Kollig pointed to Warsh's letter and said all project budgets were approved by the Board's governors. He did not answer who approved the contract modifications that took the construction contract from its original $1.5 million award for preconstruction services to more than $2 billion, or identify the firms running the job, saying he would respond later.

The Justice Department served the Fed with grand jury subpoenas in January 2026. Powell said in a video statement at the time that the subpoenas threatened an indictment over his June 2025 testimony about the renovation.

The U.S. Attorney's Office contacted the inspector general on April 9, 2026, and met with his staff a week later to discuss the scope of the evaluation, according to the report. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro closed the criminal probe on April 24, saying she was doing so "as the [inspector general] undertakes [his] inquiry." Her office did not respond to questions about whether she will revisit it.

It has happened before. The report notes the same failure to set a spending limit in a 2014 review of the Fed's Martin building renovation. That project ultimately took 11 years and rose from $203 million to $454 million. The Board closed all 11 recommendations from that earlier work.

(The Center Square) – Adults who drank diet drinks, like diet soda, kept weight off just as well as those who drank water over two years, a new study⁠ found.

University of Liverpool researchers followed 493 overweight and obese adults. They randomly assigned participants to drink either water or beverages with low- or no-calorie sweeteners while participating in a weight-loss program.

Those who finished the study lost an average of 10.6 pounds in the diet-drink group and 8.2 pounds in the water group. The difference was statistically insignificant.

States like Florida and Indiana ban people from buying diet soda with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The federal program helps low-income households buy groceries.

Florida⁠ stopped allowing SNAP purchases of soda, energy drinks, candy and certain packaged desserts on April 20. Its soda restriction includes both regular and diet sodas. The state lists Diet Coke, Coke Zero, and Diet Pepsi among the drinks recipients can’t buy with their welfare benefits. While diet soda has no calories, it also effectively has no nutritional value.

Florida says the restrictions will help recipients eat and drink healthier. Its rules still allow sugary sports drinks like Gatorade and Powerade.

Indiana⁠ also bans regular and diet soda SNAP purchases. Those restrictions took effect Jan. 1. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved⁠ requests from states to restrict certain SNAP purchases. The Trump administration says the restrictions will improve recipients’ health. Each state’s rules determine which products people can buy.

The Liverpool trial compared diet beverages with water. It didn’t compare diet soda with regular soda or test whether SNAP restrictions improved people’s health.

Participants attended weekly weight-loss meetings over the first 12 weeks, then monthly meetings for another 40 weeks. They could choose to continue for a second year without regular weight-management meetings.

The diet beverages contained sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame potassium and sucralose. Both groups consumed less sugar and shrunk their waist measurements during the study.

The World Health Organization advised⁠ against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in 2023. It said the evidence didn’t show a long-term benefit in reducing body fat.

WHO called the recommendation conditional. It said that health conditions and sweetener use may impact the results.

Joanne Harrold, Liverpool’s dean of psychology, said in a news release⁠ that “concerns about sweeteners disrupting appetite or causing weight gain are not supported when tested in a rigorous, long-term randomised trial.”

The British Journal of Nutrition published the peer-reviewed study. The American Beverage Association funded the trial.

The authors said the association didn’t design or conduct the trial, analyze the data, or interpret the results. The association reviewed the manuscript, but the authors controlled its final content.

Just 220 of the original 493 participants finished the two-year follow-up. The authors said the low completion rate limited the study. They also said they did the trial at one location in England.

The Food and Drug Administration separately says⁠ sweeteners it approves are safe for human consumption.

(The Center Square) – Gov. J.B. Pritzker says he and leading members of the General Assembly participated in a productive meeting with National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday.

Pritzker’s office released a statement saying the governor was grateful to meet in Illinois with Goodell, Pat Ryan, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, and state Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago.

The statement said the governor’s office remained in conversations with the Chicago Bears throughout the summer about their plans in Illinois.

The meeting was described as “productive,” with a focus on keeping the Bears in Illinois and protecting taxpayers.

Bears officials said in August they are moving forward with stadium development plans in Indiana, even though they have yet to announce an actual stadium site.

On Aug. 31, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said he doesn’t know for sure the if Bears will play in Hammond, but he said the team should favor his state over “slower-footed” Illinois.

The General Assembly considered but did not approve two separate stadium bills during spring session.

Fall veto session is scheduled Nov. 17-19 and Dec. 1-3.

Tennis is often celebrated as a heart-healthy workout—a high-stakes game of fast sprints, powerful serves, and quick directional changes. But how does an hour on the court actually impact your cardiovascular system during play, and what happens to your body once you step off the court?

To find out, Oura’s data science team analyzed de-identified and aggregate data from adult members across 11 global markets over a one-month period (July 17 – August 17, 2026). The analysis examined heart rate intensity, long-term Cardiovascular Age (CVA), and post-match overnight recovery metrics like Heart Rate Variability (HRV) and Resting Heart Rate (RHR).

Below, find out what Oura data reveals about the physiological effects of tennis.

1. On-Court Impact: Varied Average Heart Rate and Heart Rate Zones

While tennis feels like high-intensity interval training (HIIT) due to short bursts of rallying followed by rest, the heart rate time-series data tells a slightly different story for most recreational players.

Our analysis found little evidence that most recreational players spend meaningful time in high-intensity heart rate zones (Zone 4 or Zone 5). While players experience short spikes in heart rate, average workout intensity remains predominantly aerobic.

• Across all global markets, the median average heart rate during a tagged tennis session generally sits in Zone 2 (an aerobic, steady-state intensity zone).
• Median peak heart rates reached Zones 3 and 4 across most member segments.
• Max heart rates routinely hit the upper edge of Zone 4 for older age groups, as well as members in warmer environments such as Mexico, parts of the United States, and the UAE.
• Members who logged more than 12 sessions during the one-month window reached higher peak heart rates than casual players. 

2. Longer Term Heart-Health Benefits

While individual matches may operate primarily in aerobic zones, the cumulative impact of playing tennis regularly shows a positive trend in long-term cardiovascular health.

Across every single market analyzed, tennis players demonstrated a larger positive gap between their chronological age and their Cardiovascular Age compared to non-tennis-playing members during the time period analyzed.

3. Post-Match Recovery: What Happens While You Sleep?

The physical demands of a tennis session don’t end when the match point is scored. To understand post-match recovery, we compared post-workout sleep metrics against each member’s personal 14-day pre-workout baseline.

• Members experienced noticeable overnight Heart Rate Variability suppression following a tennis workout, indicating that the nervous system was actively recovering from sympathetic stress.
• Overnight Resting Heart Rate remained slightly elevated compared to baseline.
• Across all regions, the lowest overnight heart rate occurred approximately three to four hours after sleep onset.

Methodology

• Population: Oura members aged 18–69 across 11 target markets (United States, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, UAE, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Germany).
• Time Period: Data collected over a one-month window from July 17 to August 17, 2026.
• Baselines & Metrics: Post-match overnight HRV and lowest RHR were compared against each member’s individual 14-day pre-workout sleep baseline. Workout HR metrics utilized a stratified sample across country and playing frequency tiers to manage high-density timeseries data.
• Sample Size Thresholds: Segment breakouts required a minimum sample size of 100 members. CVA comparisons required at least 100 tennis and 100 non-tennis members with active CVA metrics in each segment.

This story was produced by Oura and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.