For most of 2026, the bear case on the US power producers could be summed up in one sentence: nobody is signing data center PPAs in PJM. Last week Amazon did. This morning Google did, too, and this one is five times bigger.
Google parent Alphabet has contracted for 3,590 megawatts of power from Constellation Energy (CEG) inside PJM, the largest US grid, the companies said on Tuesday, according to Reuters, confirming an overnight report from Bloomberg. Roughly a quarter of it, 890 MW, is new nuclear capacity squeezed out of 11 existing reactors under a 20-year PPA backed by more than $4.3 billion of Constellation investment, expected to start delivering in 2028. The rest is a long-term supply agreement for another 2,700 MW. And in case anyone missed why this is happening now, the companies said it outright: the deal is a response to PJM's "bring your own power" proposal.
Constellation shares jumped as much as 14% premarket (they were up 6.3% when Bloomberg first broke the story last night), trading above $300 for the first time in a month.
Zerohedge readers know this story didn't start this morning. We have been tracking the AI-nuclear trade since Microsoft agreed to restart Three Mile Island in September 2024, when nuclear names surged across the board on what was then a shocking headline. (Five years earlier, we were writing about "America's Chernobyl" finally closing its doors. Funny how the AI capex cycle changes things.) Two years later, Constellation has become Big Tech's nuclear landlord.
Below we break down the deal, why PJM forced Google's hand, what Goldman's power desk and utilities team are saying, and why the cheapest nuclear megawatt is the one already built.
The Deal: 890 Nuclear Megawatts... Plus 2,700 MoreThe terms, per the companies' statement and the Reuters and Bloomberg reports:
Translation: the 890 MW is the headline-friendly "new clean firm power" part. The 2,700 MW is essentially Google locking in a long-dated price for a big chunk of Constellation's existing output. Who needs a hedging desk when you have a hyperscaler?
Stack it next to Constellation's other hyperscaler deals and Google's is bigger than Microsoft, Meta and Amazon put together (2,646 MW combined), at least once the non-unit-specific supply is counted:
It also comes less than a week after Amazon's 690 MW, 20-year PPA at Calvert Cliffs, which we covered on Thursday in "Amazon Secures 20 Years Of Nuclear Power From Constellation As Goldman Sees Industry-Wide Win". And Google is hardly new to the game: it is already funding the restart of NextEra's Duane Arnold reactor in Iowa (which just landed a $1.9BN DOE loan), and last month lined up new capacity from Southern Co. by paying for upgrades at two of its nuclear plants.
Here is a snapshot of Constellation's recent nuclear deals, updated for the just announced Google transaction, along with disclosed terms:
And a summary of the terms of both the Google deal and the recent agreements with Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and GSA.
Why Now? "Bring Your Own Power" Is Coming To PJMThe key line in the Reuters story is the last one. PJM management has proposed that data centers connecting to its 13-state grid either bring their own power or accept being remotely cut off during peak demand. Goldman's Nelson Armbrust laid out the mechanics in his What Matters Today note this morning (available to pro subs):
"Today, when you build a data center, you need a permit but you don't need to secure energy – this is what will be ruled (hopefully) on October 12th. PJM's proposed Interim Resource Adequacy Service (IRAS) targets new large loads (≥ 50 MW) entering service after June 1, 2027. To avoid priority grid curtailment during emergencies, data centers must secure their own power under the "Bring Your Own New Capacity" (BYONC) framework."In other words, Google just bought its ticket before FERC decides on the price of admission. Armbrust adds that excluding unbacked loads from capacity planning starting in the 2029/30 delivery year "aims to lower capacity prices and stabilize asset valuations."
Lower capacity prices would certainly be a change of pace. As we tweeted the night of July's auction, PJM is already out of power:
Today PJM failed to secure 7GW in energy to ensure system stability into 2028 (due to price caps, without which electricity prices would be 70% higher). PJM is already below the critical reliability threshold, and in 2027 is facing a catastrophic shortage of power and brownouts
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 15, 2026Capacity prices have gone from $28.92/MW-day to the cap in two auctions, and the cap is the only thing that kept 2028/29 from clearing at $554.72:
PJM's emergency fix, a one-time "backstop" auction for new capacity, didn't go much better. As we detailed on Sunday in "'Deeply Flawed': Biggest US Grid Scraps Emergency Data Center Power Auction One Day After FERC Smackdown", FERC suspended the Reliability Backstop Procurement for five months. That's a power auction for data centers... delayed. Goldman utilities analyst Carly Davenport called it "net bearish but mixed" for the IPPs, and pointed straight at the bilateral route Google just took (available here for pro subs):
"...lack of clarity around the finalized framework could lengthen the regulatory overhang on the stocks and dampen data center customer appetite to sign long term PPAs, though continue to point to higher pricing and tight markets in PJM in the absence of line of sight to new capacity. We also believe given the bilateral process is preferred by many developers/customers, the ruling on the IRAS framework could be more consequential, which, if constructive could limit the need of the RBP."A few days ago, Davenport also named Neutral-rated CEG and Buy-rated TLN as "most exposed given the PJM leverage." This morning that exposure worked in Constellation's favor.
As for who has been paying for PJM's shortfall so far: the ratepayers. Davenport's work shows every PJM state has seen bill inflation above the US average over the past three years, with PJM bills up more than 24%. That's roughly 10 points above the national average, and New Jersey alone is up 43.4% (chart source GS Power Up America webinar):
With the midterms four weeks away, nobody in Trenton, Annapolis or Harrisburg wants to explain the next leg higher. Hence "bring your own power."
Goldman: From A "Heartbeat" To A PulseFor context on why the IPPs have been such a slog, here is Goldman's GSX desk summarizing last week's Power Up America webinar with Davenport, Joe Ritchie, Adam Bubes and Olivia Foster (available to pro subs):
"No large-scale data center PPA between a developer and an IPP has been announced since January. FERC is expected to rule on the PJM large-load framework on October 12... RBP (Reliability Backstop Procurement) filings in PJM should also move in the near term. Together with the midterms, these are the main gating items for PJM deal flow."That "since January" drought ended twice in seven days. The webinar also noted that the group is down ~30% over the last 12 months, with CEG, NRG, TLN and VST trading on average at just over 7x EBITDA and a 12% free cash flow yield on 2027 estimates, "both at the discounted end of historical ranges," while the IPP basket trades near its Liberation Day lows:
After the Amazon deal, Goldman's power specialist Adam Wijaya said one investor question "stuck out": can this get the group working again? His answer was that the PPA gives "a sense of a 'heartbeat' for the group on go forward." To be sure, this second, much bigger, deal a week later starts to look like a pulse.
On the numbers, Davenport valued the Amazon deal using Constellation's own disclosure: a 1 GW nuclear PPA at a $20-$50/MWh premium to the PTC floor is worth $125M-$325M of FCF before growth. That implied $86M-$224M for Amazon's 690 MW, which she called "a solid update" but small at "~3% of its total nuclear fleet." Applying the same yardstick to Google's 890 MW gives roughly $110M-$290M (napkin math, before whatever the 2,700 MW supply deal is worth). Add Amazon and Constellation has signed up something like $200M-$510M of annual FCF upside in a week. Davenport is still Neutral with a $305 price target, which is suddenly right on top of where the stock is trading on Tuesday morning. We expect the next price target revision to point (much) higher.
Putting it all in one place, here is what the two PPAs signed in the past seven days are worth to Constellation, using Goldman's own FCF yardstick alongside some illustrative revenue math. Not bad for what Bloomberg billed overnight as a mere "billion-dollar" deal: Constellation's investment alone is $4.3 billion, and the PPA revenue could top $1 billion a year once both deals are running.
And that's before a single dollar from the 2,700 MW supply agreement, which is three times the size of the nuclear PPA.
Goldman's desk was already leaning in before this morning's print. Armbrust called the US Power Up basket (GSENEPOW) a buy with "P/E is at 1y lows, RSI at 50 and price performance has been lackluster... I think its a buy."
The Cheapest Nuclear Megawatt Is The One You Already OwnThe underappreciated part of the deal is how Google gets its new 890 MW: uprates, meaning squeezing more output from reactors that are already licensed, built and on the grid. No new site, no decade-long permitting, no first-of-a-kind cost overruns.
Some napkin math: $4.3 billion for 890 MW works out to roughly $4,800 per kW. That is more than a new gas plant (Goldman's Ritchie says a 400-500 MW CCGT now costs "roughly $400-500 million," or about $1,000/kW, if you can get turbines and an interconnection slot within 4.5 years). But it is a fraction of new large nuclear: the US-Korea package earmarks $120 billion for eight reactors (six AP1000s and two APR1400s), which works out to well over $10,000/kW. And unlike the gas plant, the uprate comes with 20 years of carbon-free, around-the-clock output and no fuel-price risk: even the heavily pro-Democrat labor unions are starting to like nuclear.
Lined up side by side, the math is hard to argue with. Gas is the cheapest per kW... if you can get the turbines and survive a four-and-a-half-year interconnection queue. Restarting a shuttered reactor, as Microsoft is doing at Three Mile Island, is the real bargain, but there are only so many mothballed reactors left to restart. Which leaves uprates: roughly a third of the cost of a new reactor, a decade sooner, and on sites that are already licensed and plugged into the grid:
Little wonder, then, that Google is paying Constellation to squeeze more out of what it already owns rather than wait for the AP1000s. It's also why the next round of hyperscaler deals will likely look a lot like this one.
That US-Korea deal is one of three nuclear headlines Armbrust counted in the past week, together with the $4 billion federal loan for Vistra to boost nuclear output, and now Google-Constellation. And yet positioning is going the other way:
"Positioning in in our Uranium basket (GSXURANI) is at the lows… time to reengage?"Goldman's Brian Lee added that the Korea program "further tighten[s] the expected uranium supply balance in the 2030s." Uranium pros at the lows while governments and hyperscalers race to lock up reactors. That is one hell of a setup.
The demand side isn't easing either. GIR sees 108 GW of US data center power demand by 2030, up from 39 GW in 2025...
...which lifts total US power demand growth to a 3.5% CAGR, a number that would have been laughed out of any utility investor day five years ago:
Or, as Ritchie put it: "the demand environment right now honestly just couldn't be better."
Who Pays? (Hint: Not Just Google)Google can afford it. Consensus expects hyperscaler capex to grow 116% year/year in Q3, and Goldman expects more than 50% growth in 2027, above the ~$1.1 trillion consensus. That's something we discussed earlier in "'The S&P 2': Micron And Nvidia Alone Will Deliver A Third Of Q3 Earnings Growth":
How that capex gets financed is a separate question, and increasingly a debt-funded one. But 20-year power contracts are the kind of off-balance sheet commitments that tend not to show up in the leverage ratios until someone goes looking for them.
Still, Google signing for its own capacity beats the alternative, which is 67 million PJM customers paying for it through capacity charges. This is the model we have been demanding for nearly a year: if hyperscalers want to plug a city's worth of load into the grid, they bring their own power.
Make "behind the meter" mandatory https://t.co/bCBnwx2E5g
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 24, 2025Goldman has since come around, raising its behind-the-meter forecast to 67GW by 2030. Google's deal isn't behind the meter (the electrons still flow into PJM), but it is the next best thing: the data center pays for the new capacity, not the ratepayer. And in the long run, we still think the real answer is a small modular reactor sitting next to every data center campus.
Bottom LineGoldman's Wijaya put it best after the Amazon deal: "we know how quickly the tide can turn on power." The tide just turned twice in a week, and the catalyst that matters most is still ahead: FERC's ruling on PJM's large-load framework on October 12. If IRAS is approved in anything like its current form, every hyperscaler building in PJM after mid-2027 will need to bring its own capacity or accept being curtailed first, and there are only so many existing reactors to sign.
Which is why we think the 3,590 MW is the floor, not the ceiling. Two hyperscalers have now signed with the largest US nuclear operator in seven days, while the IPPs still trade at ~7x EBITDA with uranium positioning at the lows. Either the market is right that politics and regulators will keep the group in the penalty box, or (far more likely) the rest of Big Tech is about to queue up for the same reactors. Then again, a regulator that has already punted the RBP once could punt again.
We'll check back after FERC rules next Monday.
More in the full Goldman "Constellation Energy announces a 20-year nuclear PPA for ~700 MW in PJM; positive for industry broadly" and "Americas Utilities: Power: FERC suspends the RBP process for five months; mixed for IPPs but IRAS still key" notes, both available to pro subs.
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2026 - 12:25Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,
Columbia University satire student paper The Federalist has long relished triggering viewers, particularly conservatives. When it mocked the murder of Charlie Kirk, it shrugged off objections that people need to get a sense of humor. However, the paper has now apologized for something beyond satire: land acknowledgments. The editors issued a cringing apology for a joke about land acknowledgments. It appears that, unlike political assassinations, land acknowledgment are simply not laughing matters. It pledged to focus on something called "punch-up humor" that picks only on "people and systems in positions of power."
The editors removed a column titled "I Lived It: Before We Had Sex, My Boyfriend Said a Land Acknowledgment." It posted a statement on its Instagram page that the article "upset many members of the Columbia community and handled a sensitive topic rashly and irresponsibly: the important recognition of the native land Columbia University and much of our country sit on."
We take full accountability for the weight of our harmful words, and we thank Columbia's Native American Council, as well as other members of the community, for bringing this to our attention. We deeply apologize for any harm this article caused, and we are taking this moment to refine our humor guidelines to ensure that our mission of satire does not hurt communities and voices that should uplifted.
In a moment like the one we are currently living in on a campus like ours, political satire is more important than ever, and we would like to reaffirm our commitment to uplifting marginalized voices in this endeavor.
It was a telling moment in higher education, with institutions fighting to coerce faculty members and students to engage in what critics call a woke, performative moment before meetings, classes, and events.
Recently, the University of Washington settled a case after burning a fortune on litigation over a professor's dissenting view of land acknowledgment.
We previously discussed the case of Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He refused to post the school's "land acknowledgment" and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared, "Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court."
After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten "Indigenous land acknowledgment" statement to their syllabi, reading:
"The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations."
Reges decided to write his own statement:
"I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington."
The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke's theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, "can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations."
In his lawsuit, Professor Reges detailed how, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.
Reges noted that the university allowed other professors "to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University's recommended statement." The operative point is that "other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University's own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University's recommended version."
That ended up costing the public a massive amount of money in Washington, but none of the faculty or administrators responsible for this conflict incurred any penalties or costs. Indeed, they were heralded for their struggle in favor of land acknowledgments.
Given such efforts, it is clear that many in academia will not tolerate any jokes, let alone alternatives, to land acknowledgments. It is part of the ideological echo chamber of higher education. The joke, however, is on these forces of orthodoxy. Forcing public apologies with public acknowledgments only undermines efforts to get people to consider the history of Native peoples.
Many of us support discussion and recognition of the history of native peoples. We simply oppose mandatory land acknowledgments, including "voluntary" systems that bar alternatives or coerce participation. As for the cringing editors of The Federalist, they supplied the greatest satirical moment after claiming a mission to "doggedly pursue the truth in its most raw, exaggerated, hyperbolic, blatantly untrue form."
Some matters in higher education are simply beyond satire, and that is a truly pathetic acknowledgment.
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2026 - 12:20Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,
In Collin County, home to a growing Muslim population, residents of McKinney have been gathering signatures to recall the city council members and the mayor who approved a mosque site plan after a tense city council meeting in August.
A few miles south, on the 25th anniversary of 9/11, protesters gathered outside a Plano mosque, waving American flags and holding signs about Jesus and "Don't Mecca My Texas," as Muslims passed by on their way to prayer.
To the east in the rural part of the county, what's known as EPIC city, a 1,000-home Muslim development, anchored by a mosque, remains on hold. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to stop construction amid public concerns that the enclave would promote sharia, or Islamic law.
Muslims say their freedom to believe is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and dismiss the opposition as political opportunism or plain bigotry. Those who oppose the mosque have concerns about Islam's political aspects, radical Islamic extremism, or the sense that Islam doesn't belong in a nation built on Christian values.
Perhaps nowhere in Texas has the argument over whether Islam is a religion or political ideology been so visible as in Collin County, part of the suburban sprawl north of Dallas. The rapid Muslim growth here has met robust local opposition at a time when some Republicans in Texas and on the national stage have made a campaign issue out of opposing Islam's political aspects.
Cowboy Country and IslamTexas - land of cowboys, ranches, and barbecue - was home to 224 mosques in 2020, the third-largest number in the nation behind New York and California. Some estimates now put that Texas number closer to 300.
Collin County has seen a sharp rise in Muslim adherents, up from around 6,000 in 2000 to more than 37,000 in 2020, according to one religious survey.
But as more Muslims settle in the red state of Texas, strife over Islam as a political movement has grown and is increasingly reflected in election campaigns. Critics call it Islamophobia; others call the concerns justifiable.
A recent headline in The New York Times summed up the friction with a provocative article titled "Islamophobia's Rise in Texas."
The story outlined a terrorist threat at a new Islamic center in Houston, a Conroe woman who told Muslim shoppers at a grocery store they weren't welcome, and anti-Muslim sentiment over the mosque expansion in McKinney.
At the August McKinney City Council meeting, Ashley Marie Louden spoke out.
She vowed to launch a recall against elected officials who, she said, have repeatedly ignored the will of their constituents. Their unanimous vote to approve the new mosque site plan was the last straw.
"When the city council stops answering to the people, the people have a duty to act," Louden said during the city council meeting. "It's time to start organizing a recall on every member who has chosen cowardice and silence [over] accountability."
She told the Epoch Times her phone blew up after the city council approved a site plan for the mosque expansion in a busy area of town.
Louden said that characterizing resistance to a mosque expansion as mere Islamophobia dismisses valid public concerns.
Take, for example, Iran's Islamic caliphate chanting "Death to America" for almost 50 years. More recently, popular Muslim influencers such as Hasan Piker have proclaimed America "deserved 9/11."
"I think a lot of residents, and I just think as a nation, a lot of people are starting to see what radical Islam comes with, and they have every right to be concerned because it's not something that we should just welcome in the name of not being Islamophobic," Louden said.
Character-Defining MomentsAt the same McKinney city-council meeting, others said the freedom to build a house of worship is about as American as it gets. The meeting lasted more than four hours and attracted more than 100 people who signed up to speak.
Samad Syed brought a copy of the Constitution with him to the podium.
"This Constitution of America represents the greatest promise: that every person stands equal before the law; that our rights do not depend on our faith, our background, our popularity," he said.
"Tonight, this council is not deciding what kind of building belongs in McKinney. You're deciding what kind of city McKinney will be remembered as. ... Every generation has moments that define character."
Others stood up in defense of their Muslim neighbors, saying they deserve to practice their religion just like anyone else in America.
"It's very disappointing to hear all the racism, Islamophobia, and hate," Kassey Stanfill said. "I have read the Quran and the Bible, and a lot of things said today were taken out of context."
Mehdi Elofir, who sits on the board of the McKinney Islamic Association, told city leaders at the meeting that his association has met every requirement needed to expand the mosque, including studies on traffic, drainage, and environmental impact.
"This project has not been rushed," he added, referring to the approximate 5.6-acre development consisting of a mosque, classroom building, and gym.
Religion or Political IdeologyBut several spoke about their experiences living abroad under sharia, saying it's not compatible with America's Constitution and that that should give the council pause. Women are not treated as equals under sharia, and gays are not tolerated, they said.
Sandra Sammons said she grew up in a Muslim country. She said Westerners don't understand that mosques are more than religious centers; they're Islam's center of power.
Sharia operates under a different set of rules than Western Judeo-Christian values. "It dictates marriage, dietary laws, government, criminal and civil law, education - every area is governed by sharia law," she said. "In Islam, there is no separation of church and state."
Federal and state elected officials also took their turn at the podium, extending the debate beyond local residents.
Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) pointed to the British grooming gangs scandal involving mostly Muslim men who raped and abused young girls. He said authorities turned a blind eye to alleged crimes over concerns they would be accused of being racist or Islamophobic.
"Fourteen hundred years of political Islam - you can't get away from it," said Self, co-founder of the Sharia-Free America Caucus.
State Rep. Keresa Richardson, a Republican serving parts of Collin County, asked the council to delay site plan approval until the conclusion of a Texas investigation into a sharia tribunal operating in Dallas. A member of the McKinney Islamic Association advised the tribunal, Richardson said.
The Dallas tribunal is accused of seeking "to replace actual courts of law and to evade neutral, generally applicable state and federal laws," according to Paxton, who announced the investigation in an April 6 news release.
The McKinney Islamic Association did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
The three separate buildings proposed for Virginia Parkway will total more than 32,000 square feet and provide more than 200 parking spaces.
Some residents showed up to question potential parking and traffic problems that could cause further congestion in the area when combined with school schedules.
They blamed the city council and mayor for a lack of transparency and for ignoring their concerns dating back a decade to a proposal to expand the McKinney airport.
'A New Phenomenon'The McKinney mosque wasn't the only place getting pushback in Collin County. Plano was caught up in the debate as well.
On the anniversary of 9/11, the Lone Star Legionaries staged a "Stand With Texas" rally in a grassy area next to the Plano mosque.
Police and security stood by as about 50 protesters held flags and banners in near triple-digit heat. A helicopter circled as counter-protesters lined the sidewalk leading to the mosque.
Dan Chandler, a Plano resident who attended the 9/11 protest, said Americans need only look to European countries such as the UK and Spain, which have seen large numbers of Muslim immigrants, to see their future.
"Islam is not a religion," he told The Epoch Times. "It's a ploy to take over the world and to take over Texas and America."
About 40 yards away, Muslims streaming into the mosque thanked supporters who staged a counter-protest.
Cars occasionally honked for both sides.
"Thanks a lot. I really appreciate all of you coming," one Muslim man told counter-protesters who were holding signs reading "Love Thy Neighbor," "Safe Spaces for All Faiths," and "Unite Don't Divide."
Muslims who spoke with The Epoch Times seemed to take the backlash in stride, blaming it on a lack of understanding and the political season leading up to the midterm elections.
Saif Islam of Plano stopped to talk about the protest. He said people were misinformed about his religion and believes the protests are being driven by people running for office, not by fear of sharia or extremism.
"There'll always be some crazy state of mind," Islam said of the protestors. "If they want to know more, they should come in and join. We have open forum every Saturday."
He said people have been given the wrong impression of his faith.
"I feel sorry [for] people of Jesus, who should be of love and compassion," Islam said. "At least they should try minimally and attempt to get to know who these people are, rather than protesting."
Saif Islam came from Bangladesh to America about 45 years ago. The Muslim community in the area has deep roots and friendships with Christians, Hindus, and others, he said.
"We share their parking lot," he said of a neighboring church. "They share our parking lot. I mean, unprecedented friendship we have, locally."
Akram Syed, president of the Islamic Association of Collin County, said the Plano mosque where the protest was held had been in the neighborhood for 25 years.
Syed called the protest unusual and chalked it up to the "political theater."
"This is a new phenomenon for us," he said, adding that politicians were looking for a "boogieman" to help them win elections.
Recalls and LawsuitsLouden said the recall petition involves Mayor Bill Cox and three council members whose terms don't expire next year: Ernest Lynch, Geré Feltus, and Justin Beller.
The reason for the recall as stated on the petition was "a loss of public confidence in the ability of the officers named herein to faithfully represent the citizens of the City of McKinney."
Beller addressed the sometimes raucous crowd before the vote.
"I think [Muslims have] earned and deserve a little trust that they'll do right by you as their neighbors," he said.
Beller said politicians are "fear-mongering" that Muslims who have lived in the community for years will somehow become a threat if a new mosque is built.
None of those facing recall responded to an Epoch Times request for comment.
Council members have defended their decision, arguing the city would be sued if it denied the mosque expansion.
Resident Julie Simons said she was worried about traffic in the area during Muslim holy days such as Ramadan. She expressed frustration with a council that deemed itself "powerless."
"If you're powerless - you represent us - which means we're powerless," she said.
"This is our country's 250th birthday. We left England, where there was a king who determined our circumstances, our consequences, our destinies, and now it feels like we're here again. But the Muslims are king."
John Aselton, who helped organize the recall petition, said it stems from a loss of confidence in McKinney elected officials. The mosque vote was part of a broader pattern, he said.
"The main point of the recall is not that you should be afraid of your local government; they should be afraid of you," he told The Epoch Times.
Louden said the petition drive gathered about 7,600 signatures - more than the required 5,805.
The city secretary must certify the signatures. If the city council members don't step down, the council must order a recall election.
Tensions over the recall were apparent during a recent visit to Bonnie Wenk Park in Collin County, where several people stopped by to sign the petition.
One petition organizer, who declined to give his name, grew agitated when asked how many signatures had been gathered that day, fearing that revealing the numbers would embolden the opposition.
That's because the petition has faced pushback, leading to accusations of voter intimidation, with Collin County Citizens for Integrity filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice.
A Muslim CityControversy over mosques isn't new to Collin County.
Last year, the proposed EPIC City development outside of Josephine, a rural area about 15 miles southeast of McKinney, was heralded as the "epicenter of Islam in America." The development was named for the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC).
In addition to a mosque, the EPIC development would include a K-12 faith-based school, sports facilities, a community college, senior housing, an outreach center, and businesses.
The battle over building the Muslim-centric neighborhood garnered national attention.
Numerous public officials and community members have worked to halt the development, citing concerns about sharia, assimilation, and potential ties to foreign Islamic groups.
Following backlash at the local, state, and federal levels, it changed its name to The Meadow.
Paxton announced a lawsuit in late 2025 against EPIC, as well as developer Community Capital Partners and others, alleging violations of Texas securities laws. The lawsuit also claimed that the housing development would be illegally reserved for Muslim residents.
Backers denounced the legal action as Islamophobic and are defending their right to build the community near Josephine. The development remains on hold.
As Goes TexasRepublicans campaigning in the Lone Star State are tapping into public unease over the rapid increase in the Muslim population and fear of Islamic law.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is running for reelection this fall, has made banning sharia a core pillar of his campaign, like other conservatives seeking office.
Abbott designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group that denied the accusation - and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups last year.
He promoted laws banning developments "from creating sharia compounds and defrauding and discriminating against Texans."
At the Republican midterm convention held in Dallas in September, Abbott leaned into the message against political Islam.
"We are not waiting on Washington, D.C. We will fully ban sharia law in Texas," he said.
Evidence suggests Washington is paying attention.
"Religious belief is inviolate. Conduct that functions as a political system is not," Self told a House Judiciary subcommittee in May.
"The Constitution guarantees equal rights, due process, and individual liberty, while sharia assigns legal distinctions among individuals and bases authority on religious mandates."
The Trump administration designated three international branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations earlier this year - the first administration to do so.
During an August interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, President Donald Trump said the influence of sharia law in London and Paris has created "almost like a second way of life."
"I would absolutely prohibit the sharia law thing. It is happening in this country a little bit, and where we see it, we take it out," he said.
"We have one system."
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2026 - 11:40