Some of Silicon Valley's biggest AI boosters are warning that artificial intelligence could become a defining issue in the 2028 presidential election as voters grow increasingly uneasy about the massive infrastructure buildout needed to power the technology.

Box CEO Aaron Levie told the Andreessen Horowitz podcast that the next presidential contest could effectively become an "AI election," forcing candidates to confront growing public anxiety surrounding the technology.

"The next election will 100% be a referendum on AI," Levie said. "So it has to happen that 2028 is the AI election."

.@levie predicts on the @a16z podcast that the 2028 election will be a referendum on AI. pic.twitter.com/pXPPsYbYDl

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) September 30, 2026

Levie argued that supporters face a messaging problem because making the case for rapid AI development is complicated, while opposition can be communicated through simple warnings about its potential dangers.

Steven Sinofsky, a board partner at a16z and former Microsoft executive, argued that AI skeptics have already seized control of the language surrounding the debate.

"We own none of the vocabulary," Sinofsky said. "The whole debate is pause. It's swarms. It's rogue. Every word has been chosen by the people who don't want to do AI."

The warning comes as President Donald Trump aggressively pushes to cement American dominance in AI, including by accelerating construction of the data centers and energy infrastructure required to support the technology.

The Trump administration's National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence calls on Congress to streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure while ensuring residential customers do not face higher electricity bills because of new data centers.

However, public opinion suggests selling that buildout could be a political death trap for candidates seeking the highest office in the land.

A Fox News poll conducted September 11-14 found 71% of registered voters oppose an AI data center being built in their area, including 46% who strongly oppose one. Just 26% support local construction.

To make matters worse, the skepticism extends beyond where the facilities are built. A September Marquette Law School Poll found 71% of Americans believe the costs of data centers outweigh their benefits, compared with 29% who believe the benefits outweigh the costs. The survey also found 64% believe AI is bad for society, while 36% consider it a good thing.

The Trump administration has sought to tackle one of the biggest sources of voter concern: electricity prices.

Under Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, major technology companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI agreed to build, bring or buy new power generation and cover infrastructure upgrades required for their data centers rather than passing those costs onto households.

The big election focus this weekend will be on Sunday, with the latest polling data showing right-wing Senator Flávio Bolsonaro and socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are statistically tied. Polymarket, meanwhile, shows Bolsonaro with a wide lead.

Bloomberg reports that neither Bolsonaro nor Lula is expected to secure an outright victory in Sunday's first round of voting. This suggests that a second round on October 25 is highly possible.

For weeks, we've outlined that high volatility is expected in the Brazilian currency and stocks after this weekend's first round of voting.

Traders are increasingly positioning for former President Jair Bolsonaro's eldest son to beat the socialist. As we've pointed out, this could set up the next big squeeze.

So far, the election trade in Brazil is gathering steam: currency volatility is surging, bullish stock options have erupted, and Polymarket odds give Bolsonaro roughly a 55.6% chance of winning.

The Brazilian real's one-week implied volatility has jumped above 31%, its highest level since late 2022. That exceeds the one-month measure, which captures both voting rounds but remains below 25%, highlighting the extreme concentration of risk ahead of Sunday.

Open interest in options on the iShares MSCI Brazil ETF (EWZ) has hit a record of 9 million contracts, driven mostly by calls. Demand for bullish options on the main equity benchmark Ibovespa index has also increased since late August.

Citigroup and JPMorgan analysts have told clients to use options that would benefit from a stronger real, while Brazilian hedge funds, including Ibiuna and Verde, have told clients they have positioned themselves with options for a potential stock rally.

"We expect the biggest surprise to come in the first round, with Flávio likely to finish ahead of Lula," Fabricio Taschetto, CIO at Ace Capital, wrote in a note. He added that the market reaction could exceed the move already priced into options.

BofA analyst David Beker told clients, "Brazil outperformed LatAm and global markets this week. Focus is on the first round of elections on Sunday."

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Clusterfuck Nation,

The Ancient Parable

"I will throw you in prison. I want Chinese style communism to happen inside of the democratic party right now. I want to do cultural revolution shit."

- Hasan Piker, DSA Spox

Translation: Chuck Schumer knows that the Democrats have already been thwarted from rigging the election, from flooding the polls with illegal immigrant voters, with dead voters, with voters who moved out of state but still got mail-in ballots sent to their old addresses, with voters registered as living in Walmart parking lots, and so on. Chuck Schumer knows that the Civil Rights Division of DOJ is sending hundreds of lawyers to observe the action in swing state polling places. ICE might even be on hand to see who turns up.

So, Chuck Schumer is pretending that the Republicans will try to do what the Democrats actually did in several previous elections (including the last midterm, 2022, viz., AZ, GA, NV), and would have liked to do in this midterm, but can't. The Democrats will holler like crazy about it before the election to plant this idea in credulous minds. They will jump up and down going woo-woo-woo on Election Day itself to water the idea. And after the election they will blitz every critical precinct with lawsuits to prevent the vote from being certified, using select "activist" judges to issue TROs and writs to delay election results and de-legitimize the vote.

And if none of that avails - which it won't - they'll call out their ground troops, Antifa, BLM, Free Palestine, LGBTQ2S+, the furious transsexuals, the hysterical cat ladies, and suchlike to make a giant ruckus so as to provoke the president to invoke emergency powers to quell the mayhem. And then they'll point at Mr. Trump shrieking, "See! Tyrant!"

Chuck Schumer is such a shithead. Everybody knows that he intends for the Democratic Party to inflict lawfare and commit warfare on the midterm election (in that order), and hence on the American people, behind an Alinsky-grade cloud of gaslight claiming the other side is doing it.

Of course, it's the president's constitutional duty (Article II, Section 3) to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. You have seen that Mr. Trump is taking a good deal of care vis-à-vis this midterm election to avoid any hint of interference. You can infer that's at least one reason we have seen no indictments of the Deep State sedition artists operating so brazenly since 2016.

By the way, doing what's possible to make sure that only citizens can vote is taking care to faithfully execute the law, in case there's any question about that. A September 25 SCOTUS decision in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters (No. 26A308), a 6-3 majority (usual suspects dissenting) paused by lower-court judge Sparkle Sooknanan that had blocked the Dept. of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system - further proof that the Lefty-left won't abide any restrictions on who can vote.

The SCOTUS stay allows state and local officials to match their voter rolls against federal Social Security records, to sort out who can legally vote. AI could do this with novel efficiency. The catch is, states' participation is voluntary. Only twenty-seven states have moved to participate in this record-sharing. Another catch is that SCOTUS waited, for unknown reasons, before issuing their ruling until well into the "90-day rule window" (in the National Voter Registration Act) that doesn't allow actual changes in the voter rolls during this period, only identification of problems. We'll see if any of that dissuades non-citizens from attempting to cast a vote.

You have to wonder why the Democratic Party is acting like they've already won the midterms. After ten years of narrative control through their allies in the network media and what's left of the major newspapers, the Democrats apparently believe that if you assert an outcome often enough, Oprah Winfrey style, it will come true.

It's just another gaslighting op. Look at the Democratic Party's marquee candidates, a ragtag and bobtail of avowed jihadis, communists, neo-Jacobins, and plain old creeps such as Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Melat Kiros in Colorado, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez in New York, Angie Nixon in Florida, James Talarico in Texas, and Troy Jackson up in Maine. The old Chuck Schumer / Hakeem Jeffries wing of the party pretends to support this rabble, who have declared they are merely running under the party's banner for convenience and aim to deep-six the likes of Schumer and Jeffries at the first opportunity.

Will the Democrats still try to cheat their way through the midterms despite the obstacles and disincentives piling up around them? Probably, yes, because that will trigger conflict between the states and the Feds, and post-election chaos is what the party needs to keep hope alive, as they like to say. They want the results to remain in limbo as long as possible, with maximum lawfare around it to further confuse and confound the outcome.

It's in their nature. They are the scorpion riding the frog across the river in the ancient parable.

President Trump thinks 'certain levels' of inflation could take care of the $40 trillion national debt. 

"You know, inflation. Certain levels of inflation will also pay off that debt very rapidly. Very rapidly," he told TIME in an interview published Thursday, after the outlet pointed out has grown by about $11 trillion over his five years in office. In response, Trump first blamed Joe Biden, then the Fed, then hinted at a plan he wouldn't share.

"I know I'm the best in the world," Trump said. "The best - I don't want to tell you what those means are, but you can pay off the debt through other means. But the one thing that you can do is pay it off through growth, and we've never had growth like this."

Later he circled back, saying "the growth is going to pay off the debt" and that the Fed's hikes were "hurting our country more than inflation is hurting our country."

He didn't say what level of inflation he had in mind, or whether he wants the Fed to tolerate more of it. Earlier in the same interview, though, he blamed Biden for "the biggest inflation in history" and said he "inherited the greatest inflation in history," adding that "the only thing I have to get down now is the gas."

Headline CPI rose 3.4% in the 12 months through August, with core at 2.4%, according to the BLS. On Sept. 16 the Fed raised rates for the first time since July 2023 - a unanimous quarter-point hike to 3.75%-4% that included Trump's own pick for chair, Kevin Warsh - and penciled in another before year-end. Trump told TIME he "probably would have voted against the board" if he were Warsh, and has called for rates of 1% "or less."

On Thursday, the day TIME published the interview, the 10-year Treasury yield touched 5.34%, its highest since 2002. It closed at 5.24%.

He's Floated This Before

None of this is new for the self-described "king of debt." In May 2016 he told CNBC the US could buy back its own bonds at a discount if rates went up. That was widely read as a default threat, so a few days later he went on CNN to walk it back. "You never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?" he said.

A month before that, he told the Washington Post he could wipe out what was then a $19 trillion debt "over a period of eight years" - a debt that has since more than doubled.

Buybacks are back, too. After the debt crossed $40 trillion and long-dated yields kept climbing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tripled the cap on the first expanded buyback to $6 billion. As we noted at the time, yields surged anyway, since $6 billion barely registers against more than $2 trillion in gross issuance a year.

Bessent, for his part, prefers to talk about growth. In June 2025 he told CBS's Margaret Brennan that "everything has been alarmist" on inflation and that the US would never default. And the day after Treasury reported the $40 trillion milestone, he went on CNBC to say there was "nothing magic" about the number and "we can grow our way out of that."

The Part He Left Out

Last year we ran a piece arguing Bessent was effectively putting the national debt on an adjustable-rate mortgage by leaning on floating-rate financing, which also projected the debt would top $40 trillion by the end of fiscal 2026 - it got there in mid-August, about six weeks ahead of schedule.

Back in April 2025, Bloomberg's Simon White made the case that higher inflation and a weaker dollar - where US policy seemed to be headed - were consistent with a falling debt burden. But he warned that unlike Britain's post-WWII "beautiful deleveraging," erratic policymaking could wreck trust in the dollar system, spark capital flight and end up adding to the debt.

Nick Giambruno spelled out the mechanics in July: financial repression, where the government keeps interest rates below inflation and the difference quietly moves wealth from savers to the Treasury. With 9% inflation and 4% rates, he noted, that's a 5% transfer every year, and it compounds.

It has worked before. A 2011 BIS paper estimated negative real rates wiped out debt worth 2-3% of GDP a year in the US and UK between the late 1940s and the 1970s. But that was under Bretton Woods, with interest-rate caps, captive domestic buyers and capital controls - and the paper found financial repression works best "when accompanied by a steady dose of inflation."

The catch is that it only works if the Treasury can borrow below the inflation rate. Right now it can't: the 10-year yields nearly two points more than headline CPI, interest on the debt already runs over $1 trillion a year, and everything that matures gets rolled at today's rates.

Getting real yields back below zero would take a Fed willing to cut into rising prices - the 1% "or less" Trump keeps asking for - or something like the rate caps and captive buyers of the 1940s. Trump didn't say whether either one is among the "other means" he wouldn't name.