Former Ambassador Joe Hockey says he is nervous about AUKUS – and wants Australia’s Prime Minister Albanese to cold-call Trump

Matthew Knott, May 26, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joe-hockey-says-he-is-nervous-about-aukus-and-wants-albanese-to-cold-call-trump-20260526-p600oa.html
Former ambassador to Washington Joe Hockey says he is worried about the possibility the United States will not supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as promised under the AUKUS pact because of faltering American production rates.
The former treasurer also urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to make a habit of cold-calling US President Donald Trump to improve their relationship and influence his thinking on world affairs.
Under the AUKUS plan, the US is supposed to sell three Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia, starting from 2032.
But senior US navy officials have warned that US shipyards must start pumping out significantly more submarines to have any spare for Australia, raising the possibility of the defence force being left with a capability gap.
Hockey, who served as Australia’s top diplomat in Washington from 2016 to 2020, told the National Press Club that “for the first time, I’m a little nervous about the Virginias, and that’s after a few conversations on the Hill”.
The US, he said, “just has not got the production of the Virginia up to speed”.
Hockey’s remarks are notable because he runs a Washington-based lobbying firm that represents major defence companies and he has been a passionate champion of AUKUS.
His remarks differ from Richard Marles, Defence Minister, who told this masthead last week that there was “zero possibility” of AUKUS coming unstuck.

Asked whether there was a growing danger the sale of Virginia-class submarines could be delayed or pared back, Hockey said: “I think the risk has increased, and we need again to have a full court press on the ground in Washington.”
He said that “we’ve got to prove that we’re ready for the Virginias here and display the physical capability to house them and to support their presence here, not to give the Americans any hook not to deliver”.
Hockey did not join calls for Australia to develop a “plan B” for AUKUS, saying it was not like Albanese could “go down to Bunnings” and buy a fleet of alternative submarines.
Hockey singled out US Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg as a powerful official that Australia needed to court to ensure Trump’s vow that AUKUS is going “full steam ahead” is followed through.
“We’ve got to get political buy-in, more political buy-in, so that the people who are actually making the decisions on US procurement are keeping us at the top of the list,” he said.
Urging Australia to seek closer integration into US supply chains, Hockey said there was “no problem at a military-to-military or bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy level, it’s just a question of whether they can actually build the Virginias fast enough”.
Trump’s former acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, agreed with Hockey that it would be “really, really, really difficult” for the US to build enough submarines to provide any to Australia, despite strong bipartisan support for AUKUS in Washington.
“There’s going to be technical difficulties building that many submarines,” he said.
The US Navy’s chief of naval operations, Daryl Caudle, said last year: “The only way we’ll ever make good on the AUKUS agreement is that we get to the 2.3 [build rate], and it is my goal to make good on that.”
The US is currently producing around 1.2 boats a year, meaning production will need to increase significantly to hit the 2.3 build rate figure.
Hockey said US allies were “really missing” a figure like the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who developed a close relationship with Trump in his first term and spoke to him regularly on the phone.
Hockey lamented that among world leaders, “there’s no one that picks up the phone, they’re afraid almost to pick up the phone to the president [and] have a conversation.
“I mean, he answers phone calls from random journalists around the world, and it’s not hard to get his cell number, and he answers it,” he said.
“I’d encourage the prime minister to ring him occasionally. I mean, what have you got to lose? Australian prime ministers have been confidants of US presidents more than people realise, and I think the president of the United States is missing that back channel of advice.”
It has become something of a running joke among American journalists about how easy it is to obtain Trump’s phone number and call him for stories.
Albanese last year said he had Trump’s phone number after he remarked during an election debate that he’s “not sure that he has a mobile phone” and that texting a fellow world leader is “not the way it works”.
Blood Libels and Sexual Violence: Israel, Palestinian Prisoners and The New York Times
28 May 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/blood-libels-and-sexual-violence-israel-palestinian-prisoners-and-the-new-york-times/
When the establishment journalism of Nicholas Kristof of that most establishment of papers, The New York Times, draws the ire of a foreign regime, and an unnaturally allied foreign regime at that, a pulse might be detected in the moribund state that is the Fourth Estate. In his piece alleging a campaign of sexual violence against Palestinians by Israel’s security apparatus, he shines some blistering light on practices long suspected and discussed. It begins a proposition that, “Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemn rape.”
With that solemn theme declared, Kristof begins by remarking on the “brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct.7, 2023.” Members of the US administration and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had rightly condemned them. “And yet in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children – by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency, and, above all, prison guards.”
Brandishing his credentials as veteran war reporter, he makes it clear that, when writing about sexual violence, he knows what he’s talking about. Interest in the fate of Palestinian prisoners – especially in that way – was piqued during a visit to the activist and professor of non-violence Issa Amro. Amro had himself been sexually assaulted and suspected this to be a common practice “but underreported because of shame.” Interest then shifts to the conditions of incarceration, with something in the order of 9,000 Palestinians being held as of May. “Many have not been charged but were detained on ill-defined security grounds, and since 2023, most have been denied visits from the Red Cross and lawyers.”
Kristof then makes use of material gathered in 14 conversations with men and women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Israeli settlers and the security forces, supplemented by the accounts of family members, investigators, officials and other sources. Reports are cited – Euro-Med, Save the Children, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the United Nations. The views of Sari Bashi, an Israeli American human rights lawyer who heads the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel are documented: “Rampant sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners is a thing; it’s been normalized.” While he had seen no evidence such acts had been executed in accordance with a plan or program, “the authorities know it’s happening and are not stopping it.”
Kristof restates that point, finding “no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” But what had germinated in recent years was “a security apparatus where sexual violence has become, as a United Nations report put it last year, one of Israel’s ‘standard operating procedures’ and ‘a major element in the ill-treatment of Palestinians’.”
And, as if we ever needed evidence to demonstrate that Israel’s prison system has become a foul stew of corruption, brutality and malice towards its Palestinian inmates, we only need witness the gloating joy of Israel’s Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who makes a ghoulish habit of posting videos glorying over their misfortune and suffering. (Sexual violence doesn’t tend to make the cut, but threats of execution do.) The fact that he thought such treatment appropriate for the activists of the Global Sumud Flotilla (his posted video sufficiently demonstrates this point) showed a consistent ecumenicism on cruelty: All who dare go against Israel’s interests or dare provide sympathy to the enemy (all Palestinians are, in Ben-Gvir-lese, the enemy) deserve what they get. For such a figure to boisterously thrive, the soil had to have been appropriately manured.
Reaction to the article in Israel was biliously swift and full of rage. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, worked himself up sufficiently to claim that Israel’s soldiers had been “defamed” by Kristof; a “blood libel about rape” had been perpetrated by an attempt to “create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers.”
In a media post, Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs announced what steps would be taken. “Following the publication by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times of one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press, which also received the backing of the newspaper, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar have instructed the initiation of a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.”
Kristof’s critics have decided to layer the blood libel allegation with sinister suggestions that writing about Israeli sexual abuses against Palestinian prisoners and detainees should not take place because it seasons pre-existing antisemitic sentiments. Avoid the talk about plans, programs and systems gone to the bad: patterns suggest conspiracy, and conspiracy suggests hidden forces in clandestine boardrooms plotting predation and cruelty. Thus, we have David Frum rumbling in The Atlantic about the increasingly violent attacks on Jews in the broader Western world as attributable to “anti-Jewish sentiment that draws on the deepest foundations of anti-Jewish myth.” Presumably, Palestinian victims of rape have added their share to that myth.
To its credit, the paper has held the line. Spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander confirmed that the accounts of the 14 men and women interviewed for the article had been “corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in – that includes family members and lawyers. Details were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys in one case, with UN testimony.” Independent experts were also called upon through the reporting and verification phase. In a separate statement, the paper noted that the legal threat was “part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative. Any such legal claim would be without merit.”
Lawyers in Israel specialising in defamation law speculate about the chances of such an action credibly taking place let alone credibly succeeding. Liat Bergman Ravid of the firm Klein & Co is of the view that such a civil claim had “a low likelihood of success” seeing as the country’s Defamation Law barred collectives from bringing civil actions to court. The Attorney General might, however “file an indictment against the person who made the statement, but this is a rare event, bordering on non-existent.” Rare or non-existent, Idan Seger of Simchony, Klein, Sananes & Co was open to the suggestion. Were the case to groan into court, the paper “would face a far more stringent burden of proof in Israel than under the US standard, as a mere lack of malice is insufficient to avoid liability.” Absolute truth would have to be proved. That would be most telling on the Israeli authorities, were that allowed to happen.
Donald Trump Is Going Nuclear

He envisions hundreds of reactors rolling off Valar’s assembly line every year, populating huge groupings of reactors that Valar calls “gigasites,” and possibly, at some point in the future, being installed on Martian soil. The primary obstacle standing in the way of such a future, he explained to me, was the “regulatory matrix.”
Valar has company hats that read “Make Nuclear Great Again,”

“It’s one thing to challenge the status quo and try to innovate,” said Scott Morris, the former number two at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “It’s another to try to go behind closed doors and blow the whole thing up.”
Valar has company hats that read “Make Nuclear Great Again,”
significant piece of Valar’s safety case is its choice of fuel. Called TRISO (for “tristructural isotopic”), the fuel is fabricated so that every uranium particle is encased in a ceramic coating that can withstand extremely high heat and will contain within it nearly all the radioactive fission products that are created as the uranium starts splitting. ………….. The big downsides are that TRISO is expensive to make, and there is very little available. Valar was planning to manufacture its own on-site, but that facility was nothing more than a patch of concrete when I saw it.
As the president explodes the nuclear energy regulatory landscape, hungry startups like Valar Atomics are racing to build new reactors as quickly as possible. But speed comes at what cost?
Colin Jones, The New Republic, May 26, 2026
At 27 years old, with a baby face and a receding hairline, Isaiah Taylor looks like nothing so much as a very large cherub. After dropping out of high school, he launched into entrepreneurship; he has described himself in his professional bio as a “self-taught engineer and 3x founder.” The first two companies were an auto repair shop in northern Idaho and a software system to allow auto repair shops to track the condition of their customers’ vehicles. The third was a nuclear energy startup, Valar Atomics, with hundreds of millions in capital, a factory in El Segundo, California, and a very active social media presence. (Taylor tweets regularly: pictures of him smiling next to the red Tesla that Trump bought from Elon Musk before their falling-out; paeans to God, “the empire,” and “Western civilization”; and more scattered thoughts, like gratitude for a national nuclear laboratory: “Fizz fizz. Fizz fizz. Uranium so good! Thank you Oak Ridge!”)
Taylor founded Valar in 2023. He has said he pitched his company to some 80 different venture capital firms before Stephen Marcus of Riot Ventures gave him his first investment. That was, frankly, a crazy bet: Taylor was only 24 years old and had no real connection to the nuclear industry, apart from a paper brief on his vision. Last year, the bet paid off. In February, Valar announced it had raised $19 million in seed funding and unveiled its first reactor prototype. Then, on May 23, Donald Trump issued four executive orders that have transformed the U.S. nuclear industry. These called for new public subsidies across the entire sector—from enrichment to plant construction to the disposal of radioactive waste. Crucially for startups like Valar, the executive orders also outlined regulatory transformations that would allow companies to build small reactors, load them with fuel, and turn them on without having to go through the painstaking licensing process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As news of Trump’s orders broke, Taylor published a manifesto heaping praise on them. (“There’s a new arm to national nuclear security: Dominance. Dominance in civilian nuclear technology development, dominance in nuclear energy infrastructure deployment, dominance in shaping global development.”) The same day, Taylor went live on Bloomberg TV. Alongside Utah Governor Spencer Cox, the young CEO announced that Valar had signed a deal with the state to build an advanced reactor there that would be operational by July 4, 2026. “That’s what the president has asked for,” said Cox. “It’s absolutely possible that we can do that.”
The timeline is immensely ambitious. In a 2021 study (from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, actually), researchers looked at how long it took to build over 500 advanced research reactors “from first concrete pour to criticality” with appropriate safeguards. They found that a majority had taken at least a year to build, with the average time being 32 months. Valar, as well as a handful of other companies selected for the Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program, are attempting to do the same thing in a fraction of the time. The DOE maintains that three companies are on track to turn something on by the president’s deadline, although it is cagey about which companies exactly. Valar is gunning to be one of them.
Some critics have questioned the wisdom and purpose of this breakneck sprint. Paul Dickman, a retired senior policy fellow at Argonne National Laboratory and an adviser to the Japanese government on the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex, called it “bullshit” when I spoke with him. “I always tell people I don’t need to wait until July Fourth. I can do it tomorrow. I’m gonna go down to PetSmart and get myself a fish tank. I get myself a California source and a piece of fuel and I’ll have criticality tomorrow,” he said. “Of course I have a lot of dead fish floating around my fish tank, but that’s OK, you know.”
Others have pointed out that the United States has no long-term solution for waste disposal. Or that major questions hang over the economic viability of the small modular reactors most of these companies are building. Or that the reforms Trump has enacted at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission look like regulatory capture. Even further afield, there are those who view the current bipartisan enthusiasm for nuclear energy as a pernicious distraction, given that almost none of these reactors will come online soon enough to service the data-center boom or affect global carbon output in time to evade catastrophic climate change. “The first thing to understand is there isn’t much of a there there,” Allison Macfarlane, director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and former chair of the NRC, told me. “None of these things exist, OK. You can’t go and buy one and have it built tomorrow or even probably 10 years from now. So that’s the reality.”
Thus far these voices have been little more than a distant chorus to the forward march of industry. Asked recently what success looks like for the NRC, Ho Nieh, whom Trump appointed as NRC chair in January, replied, “Shovels in the ground.”
I first spoke with Taylor in summer 2025, a few weeks after Trump’s executive orders were announced. He popped up on my computer screen seated in a rattan chair and ready to give me his pitch. “Most of the time when we’re talking about building reactors, these are like five- to 10-year research projects, which maybe happen, maybe don’t,” he said. “And my whole philosophy in starting the company was like, we have to start moving faster as a country.” China, which had started building out a major domestic nuclear industry only this century, was on pace to overtake the United States in nuclear energy generation within a matter of years. It would require “a massive leap” to catch up. He thought Valar could do it.
Part of the reason I had been interested in Taylor and Valar was that they were such outliers in the field. Taylor has a great-grandfather who worked on the Manhattan Project, but his childhood was spent following his own dad from state to state as he chased white-collar sales work and the like. He says he grew up on food stamps. Their car was once stolen by a family friend, whom they confronted and forgave. I found these details immensely sympathetic when I heard Taylor relate them in an unusually personal interview he gave to the podcaster Shawn Ryan. I felt the same way hearing Taylor speak about his mother’s intelligence and how she used to discuss physics with him when he was a child.
All this cut against some other salient facts of Taylor’s life, which reporters in Salt Lake had been writing about of late, after his company announced it would build a nuclear reactor in their state. Like our secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, Taylor is a member of Christ Church, an institution that was founded and is still run by a pastor named Doug Wilson. Wilson wants an America in which non-Christians would be barred from public office. In a tweet about Wilson, Taylor said he appreciates the pastor’s teaching on “Christian wealth.” For Taylor, that not only means money, but also friends and family and other forms of wealth, although money is a big piece of it. (“Certain exceptions aside, participating in the system of wealth creation is simply blessing your neighbor at scale.”)
More directly related to what Valar was attempting, Taylor had erroneously claimed in a press release posted to X that you could hold spent fuel from his reactor after it had been removed. (“Nuclear engineer here. This statement cannot possibly be true,” Nick Touran, a prominent nuclear commentator and indeed a nuclear engineer, replied to the tweet. Fuel from the kind of reactor Taylor was talking about “would give a person a fatal dose within a few seconds if they were to hold a handful.”) And there was the unfortunate fact that in 2023, months after Taylor founded Valar, his friend and director of business operations, Elijah Froh, had sued Taylor’s other friend and head of operations, Kip Mock, for pouring diesel in a wood-burning stove and inadvertently setting Elijah on fire.
When Taylor and I talked, we focused on his criticisms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Like most leading nuclear startups today, Valar is pursuing a small modular reactor, or SMR. Its chosen design is cooled with helium gas, and Taylor has called it “the Toyota Camry” of nuclear reactors. (That has to be understood as a proleptic description, as there is currently only one commercial version of such a reactor in operation in the world, and it is in Shandong, China). Also like most of its competitors, Valar has a business model that leans heavily on the notion that it will build its reactors in a factory. For years now, analysts have suggested that bringing construction inside a factory could help avoid the cost and schedule overruns for which the nuclear industry has become notorious. There is the tantalizing likelihood, too, that repeated construction will yield major efficiency gains, as mass production has tended to do for most products. Taylor is particularly captivated by these prospects. He envisions hundreds of reactors rolling off Valar’s assembly line every year, populating huge groupings of reactors that Valar calls “gigasites,” and possibly, at some point in the future, being installed on Martian soil. The primary obstacle standing in the way of such a future, he explained to me, was the “regulatory matrix.”
In April 2025, Valar had joined two other nuclear startups and the states of Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Arizona, and Florida as a plaintiff in a complaint against the NRC. Their case hinged on the claim that the small modular reactors that Valar and other companies planned to build posed “no meaningful risk to ‘the health and safety of the public.’” Because of that, the plaintiff’s lawyer argued, these reactors did not fall under NRC oversight. There was some exegesis of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 involved, but in the main, the suit was asking a judge to adjudicate the basic safety of a broad category of nuclear reactors. To me, the whole thing seemed insane on its face. A report from New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity also points out the risk of a “fifty-state patchwork of separate licensing regimes” if regulatory authority were taken from the federal government. But working on the rough heuristic that the Supreme Court had systematically undercut the authority of federal regulators over the past half decade, and that the suit against the NRC was being heard by a member of the Federalist Society, I reckoned Valar and its co-plaintiffs had a reasonable chance of success.
Early in our call, Taylor wanted to show me a chart. “So this is the cumulative U.S. nuclear construction permits over time with Three Mile Island drawn in,” he said. What that looked like on the page was a yellow line ramping upward at a healthy rate from 1955 until 1979, where it was bisected by a vertical red line marking what for Taylor was a diluvian event. That year, in March, a broken valve in the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant precipitated a partial meltdown of the core and the release of a plume of radioactive fission products into the surrounding area. No deaths were directly linked to the disaster, but the U.S. nuclear industry never recovered. On Taylor’s chart, the yellow line effectively flatlined after this point.
There are a host of competing interpretations of exactly what went wrong with the nuclear industry over the 1970s. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
In the past decade or so, though, it has become more common to see arguments that lay the blame at the foot of the NRC. Take, for example, “It’s the Regulation, Stupid,” a 2024 essay from Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute……………………………………………………………………
Taylor shares the deregulatory impulse that lately goes under the slogan of abundance. His lawsuit against the NRC originated with the Abundance Institute and a former Chicago University law professor who, with financial support from the Koch brothers, had created an investment firm dedicated to “regulatory entrepreneurship.”…………………………………………………………………..
The bedrock of all this is his conviction that he should be able to build a reactor and test it without significant interference from the government……………………………………………………………………………………..
“I’ve said to people, an awful lot of what’s currently happening at the NRC feels like an Oklo revenge tour,” one former government official with knowledge of these events said to me. In 2020, Oklo Inc. was the first company to apply to the NRC for a construction permit to build an advanced reactor, or one that is not cooled with water. After two years of acrimonious back and forth, during which Oklo’s application never moved beyond the preliminary review, the NRC sent the company a letter informing it that its application had been rejected. The agency cited Oklo’s failure to provide “detailed technical information responsive to the staff’s requests for details about the safety of [Oklo’s] design.” Oklo’s CEO, Jacob DeWitte, has accused the NRC of screwing up. The executive orders that Trump signed on May 23 last year took Oklo’s side. “Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion,” reads the second of the four. The same order goes on to call for a “wholesale revision” of the NRC……………………………………………………………….
Beginning in June, DOGE staff and the president also began implementing more direct forms of control. On the 16th, Trump fired Christopher Hanson, a Democratic appointee and the former chair of the NRC’s five-person commission. A steering committee was then stood up and staffed with DOGE affiliates to implement Trump’s executive orders, including the rewriting of the agency’s rules.
So far, their recommendations have suggested changing environmental-impact reviews, cutting the number of inspections for operating plants, allowing nuclear workers to sustain higher doses of radiation, and sunsetting the NRC’s aircraft impact assessment, which requires nuclear power plants to demonstrate that a large plane crashing into the reactor would not produce to a major release of radioactivity. ………………………………………………… . In a recent ProPublica article, a young DOE lawyer who had entered government through DOGE, Seth Cohen, is reported to have commented during an internal meeting: “Assume the NRC is going to do whatever we tell the NRC to do.”…………………………………………………….
“It’s one thing to challenge the status quo and try to innovate,” said Scott Morris, the former number two at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “It’s another to try to go behind closed doors and blow the whole thing up.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Securing a plot at San Rafael let Taylor announce plans to build a test reactor on the same day that the executive orders were announced. From there, things just kept falling into place for him and his company. In August, Valar was selected as one of 10 companies to take part in the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program. That gave it preference for fuel allotment and a fast track to regulatory approval for its test reactor through the DOE.
All companies in the pilot program benefited from the same structure, but Valar appears to have enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the former DOGE staffers who were spearheading reforms at the NRC. Valar has company hats that read “Make Nuclear Great Again,”
…………………………………………………………………………………….. The real lift for Valar came in November, however, with a Series A funding round led by Snowpoint Ventures, Dream Ventures, and Day One Ventures. (Snowpoint is a major firm founded by a former head of global defense at Palantir. Dream Ventures is a bit of a cypher; it has a website with a logo in one corner and the words “Investing in Extraordinary Dreamers” displayed prominently, with no other information.
Day One Ventures was founded by Masha Drokova, an émigré who was a high-ranking member of Russia’s nationalist youth movement, Nashi, before becoming disenchanted with Vladimir Putin. In the States, she got her start in venture capital while working as Jeffrey Epstein’s publicist from 2017 to 2019. When I asked Valar’s director of communication about Drokova, I was told that she’s not on the board.) The funding round brought in $130 million, much of it from Shyam Sankar, Palantir’s chief technology officer and executive vice president, as well as from Palmer Luckey, the founder and head of the defense company Anduril Industries. (I wrote to both of them asking to speak about their choice to invest in Valar and received a polite no from each.) With that money, Valar had more than enough to build its experimental reactor in Utah. As a first step, it brought its reactor core critical at Los Alamos. Taylor claimed that Valar was the first startup to “split the atom,” rowing that back after it was pointed out that other venture-backed companies had done it years earlier.
Work at the San Rafael Energy Lab moved quickly. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
significant piece of Valar’s safety case is its choice of fuel. Called TRISO (for “tristructural isotopic”), the fuel is fabricated so that every uranium particle is encased in a ceramic coating that can withstand extremely high heat and will contain within it nearly all the radioactive fission products that are created as the uranium starts splitting. ………….. The big downsides are that TRISO is expensive to make, and there is very little available. Valar was planning to manufacture its own on-site, but that facility was nothing more than a patch of concrete when I saw it.
Finally, we entered the reactor building. A large U.S. flag had been stuck to the wall, and the ground was a vast pad of exposed concrete that ran several feet deep. Near the center of this pad, looking somewhat small within the hangar’s voluminous interior, the reactor vessel stood upright, a rounded steel cylinder maybe 15 feet high and painted black. In Valar’s design, helium will draw the heat off the reactor core through a U-shaped pipe that runs through a trench and up again into an Escheresque complex of what looked like off-the-shelf steel ducts. These contained a heat exchanger, a purification system for the helium, and a squat red vessel, studded with steel bolts, that will pump the helium through the system……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://newrepublic.com/article/210095/donald-trump-nuclear-energy-regulations-valar-atomics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily
Norway becomes ninth country to come under French nuclear deterrence scheme

Norway on Wednesday became the ninth country to join the France-led nuclear deterrence scheme, the leaders of both countries said. President Emmanuel Macron announced in March that France – the only nuclear-armed country in the EU – would extend its nuclear deterrence scheme to willing European partners.
By: FRANCE 24, 27/05/2026
The leaders of France and Norway said on Wednesday that Oslo will join a Paris-led nuclear deterrence scheme to bolster security on the continent……………..
“In the past six months, we have entered into defence agreements with both Germany and the UK, and I am pleased that we have signed a comprehensive defence agreement with France today,” Macron said.
In March, Macron unveiled a programme under which France, the European Union‘s only nuclear-armed country, would use its atomic stockpile to boost security on the continent.
Under the so-called “forward” nuclear deterrence scheme, those who join will be able to temporarily host French “strategic air forces”, which will be able to “spread out across the European continent” to “complicate the calculations of our adversaries”, Macron said at the time…..
Prior to Norway, eight countries had joined the programme – Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and fellow nuclear power the United Kingdom.
“The agreement also provides a framework for closer cooperation on hybrid warfare, maritime security, space cooperation, cybersecurity, support to Ukraine and defence industrial cooperation.”
France has an estimated 290 nuclear warheads, according to the latest figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). More than 80 percent of France’s warheads are submarine-launched, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
That makes France the world’s fourth-largest nuclear power after Russia in the top spot (with more than 4,300 warheads) followed by the United States (with 3,700) and China (600). The United Kingdom – which is no longer an EU member but still a NATO ally – is estimated to have about 225 warheads, according to SIPRI and FAS. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260527-norway-becomes-ninth-country-to-come-under-french-nuclear-umbrella
Anti-nuclear group take on Sellafield for the second time in legal row

The group is concerned over the safety of toads thought to frequent local lakes.
Floyd March, Energy Voice 27th May 2026
An anti-nuclear group has successfully raised £20,000 for legal fees to take on Sellafield and the Environment Agency (EA) for a second time.
The Lakes Against Nuclear Dump (LAND) group previously failed a High Court attempt for a judicial review into the EA decision to award Sellafield a licence to extract water from the decommissioning site in Lancashire.
After the failed attempt in 2025, the new funds will look to overturn the development of a new radioactive waste storage facility.
Its leader, Marriane Birkby, fears the construction of a tunnel underground as part of the work will lead to the discharge of contaminated water into the River Ehen and River Calder, respectively.
Sellafield plans to pump water taken from the construction site to on-site storage tanks for testing prior to being discharged directly into the sea.
It has no plans to discharge into either River Ehen or Calder.
Toads, Salmon and water leaks
Birkby had previously taken issue with the length of time taken for a judge to dismiss the group’s previous attempt for a review.
If an appeal is approved, the group will argue the EA failed to conduct due diligence in assessing wildlife concerns, mainly Atlantic salmon and natterjack toads.
Natterjack toads are a protected species and reportedly inhabit a location less than a km south west of the site. Atlantic salmon, also protected, have a migration route along the River Ehen.
The group will use law firm Leigh Day to set out the grounds of appeal to overturn the original quashing of the judicial review.
High Court Judge Karen Ridge previously ruled that an assessment of the River Ehen special area of conservation wasn’t necessary “because it was considered unnecessary” as the extraction of water “was not likely to have a significant effect.”…………………..
Sellafield labelled ‘most hazardous’ UK building
Sellafield has previously been under fire from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The agency had told the public accounts committee (PAC) in the House of Commons that Sellafield’s Magnox swarf storage silo (MSSS) was “the most hazardous building in the UK”.
The committee had noted there were “signs of improvement”. However, PAC chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said Sellafield continued to present “intolerable risks”………………………………. https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/598287/anti-nuclear-group-take-on-sellafield-for-the-second-time-in-legal-row/
Nuclear needs to build up to 8,000 SMRs just to catch up with wind and solar. By 2035, they might have 5

Giles Parkinson, May 27, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-needs-to-build-up-to-8000-smrs-just-to-catch-up-with-wind-and-solar-now-by-2035-they-might-have-5/
Australia’s almost indistinguishable far right political parties – the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation – are pushing the nuclear barrow once again, not for climate reasons but because of the “anything but wind and solar” ideology demanded by their fossil-fuelled benefactors.
So it came as a timely reminder on Wednesday, when one of the world’s leading green energy analysts, Michael Liebreich, underlined just how useless nuclear energy is for dealing with climate change, and how far the small nuclear reactors championed by many are from competing with surging wind and solar.
Liebreich is the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and his address to the Energy Efficiency Council’s National Conference also touched on the perils of net zero targets (because it puts the focus on what’s really hard rather than what’s readily achievable), and the overwhelming push for electrification for “just about everything.”
But it was the nuclear hype that he was also keen to puncture, if only to underline the sheer scale and dominance of wind and solar, and its rapidly growing share of “useable” energy, as opposed to “primary energy” that ignores the massive inefficiencies of fossil fuels.
SMR are still not being built but they are championed by some of the world’s richest people, the AI and social media “tech bros” who are looking for ample energy sources to power their massive data centre needs (while contracting tens of gigawatts of wind and solar in the meantime).
“They (the tech bros) love nuclear, and they’re going to be very angry when they discover what everybody discovers, which is nuclear is kind of expensive and long and complicated,” Liebreich said.
“But even if they succeed, it’s not going to be a climate solution,” he said. And the reason is that simply to match the output of wind and solar in the 2024 calendar year, the industry would need 1,250 of the 470 MW SMRs that are being developed by Rolls Royce, or up to 8,000 of the much smaller SMRs pushed by the likes of Oklo.
“If they build five by 2035 that will be a big win,” Liebreich said. “And so, as a climate solution, by the time you did build 2000 Westinghouse SMRs, where do you think wind and solar is going to be?
“It’s obviously going to have grown. That green curve is not stopping, it is taking off, and you can see it’s taking off even in the countries that are really trying to build nuclear.”
The nuclear push is usually associated in Australia by calls to abandon net zero targets, with the main argument being – without evidence – that it is trashing the economy.
Net zero has been criticised by others supportive of strong action. Andrew Forrest, aiming for real zero at Fortescue’s giant iron ore mines by 2030, says net zero is an excuse to do not much and use offsets instead of cutting emissions, others say a 2050 target is used by an excuse to do not much anytime soon.
Liebreich’s criticism is that it makes everything sound too hard. “By focusing on zero, immediately your eye is drawn to doing the difficult bits, and the difficult bits are expensive, and we just don’t have to have those discussions right now.
“If we can’t do aviation, there’s … a smorgasbord of opportunities right in front of us that we should be doing first and quickly, because time matters. Carbon has a time value, once it’s up there, it stays up there.”
As an example of that smorgasbord, Liebreich pointed to EVs, and specifically the Nissan Leaf, which from its 2011 version to its 2026 version had trebled the size of its battery, quadrupled its range, doubled the power, and cut the cost by one third.
Simply looking at efficient technologies can also achieve so much.
“If you go from coal-fired incandescent light bulb to an LED, same energy service, you cut primary energy by 95 per cent.
“Electric cars are the same, you go from a fossil car to electric car, (you get a) 75 per cent cut in primary energy. Same for heating, you go from a boiler to a heat pump, (you get) a 75 per cent reduction in primary energy.”
Liebreich says the greater efficiency of wind ands solar – useable energy as opposed to the primary energy championed by the fossil fuel industry trying to pretend that non-hydro renewables have no impact – will accelerate that change.
“What it does is it pushes fossil off the system, it’s a transition, and if you think about it, when we went from analog to mobile and digital telephony, we didn’t measure it by how many landlines were disconnected in 1995.
“We just asked how many people have got mobile phones. Peak landline happened over 30 years after the invention of the mobile phone, in 2006. So if you had said in 2000 there’s no transition, it’s failed, it’s troubled, it’ll never happen, you look pretty stupid now.
“Peak horse in the US was 1920. The car was invented in 1886. So you measure a transition by the growth of the new, not the crushing of the old.
“And I also think … the politics of talking about how we’ve got to stop this and block this and destroy that, and so it’s very, very difficult.
“We’re telling people you’re going to stop them from using things, whether it’s coal or petrol or diesel or their boiler, or whatever, it is politically difficult. Well, it’s unacceptable. So I think we’ve got to talk about growing anew. That brings me to electrification, and electrification, I think, is the solution to all of the above.”
And for more on that, please see our recent story on Liebreich’s recently released Elecrification Staircase – From cars to coastal shipping, we can electrify almost everything, according to Electrification Staircase.
Energy Department takes steps toward allowing plutonium, historically used in weapons, in nuclear fuel

by Rachel Frazin – 05/26/26, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5896154-energy-department-plutonium-nuclear-power/
The Energy Department may allow up to five companies to use its surplus plutonium — which it has historically been used in nuclear warheads — as fuel.
The department has selected the firms for “advanced negotiations regarding the potential allocation of surplus plutonium materials,” a spokesperson for its nuclear energy office said Tuesday.
The five companies entering advanced negotiations are: Oklo, Exodys Energy, Shine Technologies, Standard Nuclear and Flibe Energy, Inc.
The Energy Department has historically used plutonium in nuclear warheads. It produced a significant amount of it during the Cold War.
In March, the White House issued an executive order directing the department to halt a prior program that sought to dilute and dispose of the plutonium. The order also directed the department to instead set up a program making surplus plutonium available to the nuclear energy industry.
In October, the Energy Department said that the available surplus for the program includes weapons-grade, fuel-grade, reactor-grade or mixed plutonium.
According to the department, the plan to give plutonium to energy companies “is anticipated to help companies unlock the next level of private funding to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel the nation’s nuclear renaissance.”
However, critics argue that repurposing plutonium for civilian energy could have security and other risks.
“Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced in civilian nuclear energy programs,” Ernest Moniz, who was energy secretary under former President Obama, wrote last year, adding that it could lead to “the creation of additional stocks of weapons-usable materials.”
Meanwhile, Oklo cofounder and CEO Jacob DeWitte said in a written statement on Tuesday that the Energy Department program could help speed up the development of nuclear energy.
“Fuel supply constraints are a key throttle to advanced reactor development,” DeWitte said. “This program creates a pathway to use existing surplus material as bridge fuel for advanced reactors to bring more reactors online sooner.”
7 June – WEBINAR -Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
WEBINAR – https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QOJuFnibTF6eUmBt-tL8-A
As militarization pushes itself into almost every corner of our lives, as weapons become more powerful, as military bases across the world become nuclear armed, we know this is not about defense. This is about imperialism hand in hand with capitalism. It is about land grabs, resource extraction, pollution and climate change. It is about turning our communities into targets and deforming the future of our children.
Many brave women across the world have stood firm to defy this onslaught of aggression. We bring you the voices of meaningful protest from some of those standing in the front line of defiance.
Saturday – June 6, 2026 – appr. 2 hrs including Q&A
16.00 Central European time (CET) – 10.00am New York time – 23.00 Tokyo time – 24.00/midnight Australia time
Speakers
· South Korea – Sung-Hee Choi – Women Cross DMZ – “People’s protests against the naval base and militarization of Jeju”
· Philippines – Corazon Fabros – IPB – protests against US military bases.
· New Zealand – Liz Remmerswaal – active in WILPF, World BEYOND War – videoclip/protests against US military bases
· Australia – Margaret Prestorius – Wage Peace – videoclip/ protests against US military bases
· Italy – Patrizia Sterpetti – WILPF – Public Prosecutor complaint/illegal
· Japan – tba possession and transfer of nuclear bombs
· UK – Sophie Bolt – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament/CND – protests at military bases
· Germany – Kristine Karch – Stopp Air Base Ramstein – Peace week camp and demonstration at the base, June 2026
· Spain – Juan José Ruiz – active for peace – Neither Yankees nor Spaniards, bases out!
· France – Marie Sigogneau – Sortir du nucléaire pays nantais – Nuclear Exit Nantes Region – Protests against nuclear facilities
· Ireland – Veterans for Peace, Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance – Edward Horgan – weekly protests at Shannon airport in 2025 and 2026
· Netherlands – tba
Organised by
Global Women for Peace United Against NATO – GWUAN
Supported by
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
No to War – No to Nato network
Stop Airbase Ramstein
Mujeres de Negro/Women in Black Madrid
WIPLF Italy
Sortir du Nucleaire Pays Nantais, France
Women for Peace – Finland
IWA – International Women’s Alliance
World Beyond War
United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Host and moderator
Hosted by: UNAC
Moderator: Annachiara Canetta, World BEYOND War
on behalf of Global Women United for Peace against NATO
One linktree for all our media https://linktr.ee/WomenAgainstNATO
U.S. Turns Cold War Plutonium Into Nuclear Fuel

Oil Price, By Charles Kennedy – May 28, 2026,
- The U.S. is exploring the use of Cold War-era plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads as alternative fuel for advanced nuclear reactors due to uranium supply shortages and reliance on foreign enriched uranium.
- The Department of Energy has shortlisted five nuclear companies, including SMR developers.
- Critics warn the plan raises nuclear proliferation risks and could prove technically and economically difficult, as converting weapons-grade plutonium into reactor fuel remains highly expensive.
……………………………………………………………. The plutonium considered for distribution to nuclear companies is from dismantled warheads from the Cold War. The radioactive material—50 tons of surplus supply, according to the New York Times—was originally to be diluted and buried, but President Trump last year suspended that plan, per Reuters, which also recalled reports about Washington planning to make 20 tons of plutonium available to private companies.
……………………………There are, of course, opponents to the idea of using weapons-grade nuclear material for nuclear power generation by private companies. Indeed, some Democratic members of Congress have publicly protested the plan.
“The transfer of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, including to rogue states or terrorists,” Massachusetts senator Ed Markey and representatives Don Beyer and John Garamendi said in a letter from last September. “The United States cannot effectively discourage other countries from using plutonium for civil purposes if we use it ourselves.”
The idea behind the move is to encourage the development of small modular nuclear reactors that could be built much more quickly than conventional ones—at least theoretically. The practical application of SMR technology, however, has stumbled after pioneer NuScale had to scrap its plans to build the first small modular reactor in the U.S. amid much higher than hoped-for costs, leading to insufficient numbers of future buyers willing to sign up for the facility’s output.
Despite these challenges in the MR segment, nuclear is back in a big way, not least thanks to Big Tech’s AI rush, which requires these companies to secure massive amounts of electricity for their facilities—and make it reliable. This is boosting the popularity of nuclear electricity outside the Big Tech community as well—higher electricity bills are making the construction costs of new nuclear power plants more palatable than they would have been a couple of years ago.
Whether plutonium would make an equivalent substitute for uranium in this nuclear renaissance remains questionable, it seems. The fact that the element could be used for the production of nuclear weapons is one problem with the idea. Another problem appears to be of a more technical nature, per the New York Times, which also cited critics as saying the cost of turning plutonium into nuclear fuel was prohibitively high. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Turns-Cold-War-Plutonium-Into-Nuclear-Fuel.html
The Israeli Knesset just voted to dissolve itself, but this won’t end the Gaza genocide

Even if Netanyahu and his right-wing allies are ousted from government, Israel’s genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and the wars against Lebanon and Iran enjoy broad support across the Israeli political spectrum.
By Qassam Muaddi May 27, 2026 , https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/the-israeli-knesset-just-voted-to-dissolve-itself-but-any-new-government-will-still-pursue-genocide/
Israel might change its government sooner than expected after the Israeli Knesset voted to dissolve itself last week. The bill presented to the parliamentary body on May 20, which passed with a majority of 110 votes in favor and no opposing votes, could lead to early elections in September rather than November of this year. The vote was held in the absence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is set to be reconsidered at three more readings before moving toward implementation.
If passed, the current Knesset will expire, along with the government coalition based on its composition and the current cabinet led by Netanyahu. According to Israeli polls, Netanyahu’s main coalition allies, namely hardline ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, have low chances of winning. Although the two main opposition leaders, Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid, joined forces in a new party, polls indicate that Netanyahu’s Likud Party would still win 56 out of 120 seats in the Knesset. This leaves the Likud as the main political force in Israel, but without enough of a majority to form a government on its own, forcing it to form a coalition with other opposition parties.
The vote came amid renewed controversy surrounding the military drafting of Orthodox Haredi Israelis to military service. Haredi leaders presented the bill after Netanyahu’s government failed to advance another bill to exempt the Haredis from military service.
The vote to dissolve the Knesset also comes amid mounting criticism of Netanyahu over his performance during the war on Iran and the security failure on October 7, 2023.
But what would the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset mean for Palestinians? And what does it say about the current state of Israeli politics that Netanyahu didn’t oppose the vote to move to early elections?
The short answer is: not much, or at least not for the better. Israel’s opposition parties have backed the war on Gaza, the expansion of settlements, and the war on Lebanon just as fervently as Netanyahu’s coalition, and in some cases have criticized him for not going far enough. Any new government will most likely pursue the same fundamental policies toward Palestinians. In the near term, the more pressing concern is what the current government will do to shore up its electoral standing before it leaves office. Precedent suggests that means further escalation.
Right-wing politics
Israeli politics has been dominated by its most extreme right-wing forces for almost two decades, but a common feature shared by past Israeli governments has been the lack of a simple majority by any single political party. In order to make up a majority government, any political party with the most seats in Knesset would have to form a coalition with other, smaller parties, such as Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power and Smotrich’s Religious Zionism. When such government coalitions have formed, the junior partners have gained outsized leverage by the very fact that their presence keeps the government together.
Yet in all these varying combinations of successive government coalitions, Israeli policy toward Palestinians has remained largely the same.
Settlement expansion and the push toward the annexation of the West Bank have been constants of every right-wing Israeli government, as has the policy of siege and periodic military offensives in Gaza. So, too, has the escalating crackdown on Palestinian prisoners and the deterioration of their conditions, and the repeated attempts to alter the status quo in East Jerusalem and at Al-Aqsa Mosque — arenas where Israeli politicians have long competed to score political points, especially in the run-up to elections.
Netanyahu’s standing was already in decline before October 7, battered by his corruption trials, his attempts to overhaul the Israeli judiciary, and the Haredi draft crisis. After October 7, he faced additional backlash over his handling of the hostage negotiations and, later, over what many Israelis saw as unsatisfactory results from the war on Iran, particularly the way the U.S.-Iran ceasefire was reached without Israeli consultation. But none of this criticism has targeted the substance of Netanyahu’s policies, as reflected in the polls’ projections for the next election.
Both Lapid and Bennett, and most other opposition figures, have supported the war on Gaza, including actions that human rights organizations have characterized as genocidal. The Israeli opposition has also backed the war on Lebanon and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank — and has, in fact, harshly criticized Netanyahu for allowing the U.S. to constraint Israeli action in Lebanon and Iran. Whatever government emerges from the next election will almost certainly be composed of parties that support those same policies, with or without Netanyahu and his closest allies.
That said, the next Israeli government could bring a certain “cooling down” of some of the more aggressive policies, according to Esmat Mansour, a Palestinian journalist and specialist in Israeli politics.
Mansour believes that current regional conditions, including the reorganiztion of the region’s geopolitics in the wake of Iran’s newfound strategic advantage in its war with the U.S., might have an impact on the policy of the coming Israeli government. “The current situation pushes towards reorganizing the region geopolitically, and the ongoing wars that Israel is engaged in have taken a toll on Israel’s political credibility and on its social and military capacity, too,” Mansour told Mondoweiss. “This makes it necessary for any new government to focus on rebuilding and repairing damage.”
“This could lead the next government to ease its stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority financially, or to stop blocking its return to Gaza, and to allow aid and reconstruction materials into the Strip,” Mansour said. “It might also mean a reduction in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, and some improvements to daily life, like allowing West Bank workers back into the Israeli labor market.”
More of the same
But Mansour clarified that “this doesn’t mean that the next Israeli government could be one of peace, but the internal conditions and Israel’s loss of international credibility impose new priorities.” He also stressed that “such a shift depends on Palestinians’ ability to restore their unity, and on the position Arab countries take once the war on Iran is over.”
The trajectory of any incoming Israeli government will also be shaped by the international community’s position and the pressure from global solidarity movements. In the meantime, the current Netanyahu government will do everything it can to improve its electoral prospects before the elections. At the earliest, that could be next September. Most alarmingly, this effort could include resuming the genocide in Gaza, as Israeli officials have repeatedly threatened to do in recent weeks.
As for Lebanon, the Netanyahu government already discussed expanding its war on Lebanon in a security cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Smotrich has made moves to accelerate the annexation of the West Bank through a rash of legislation and unilateral orders, including the passing of the so-called “Antiquities Bill” that would transfer authority over West Bank antiquities from the Palestinian Authority to Israel, the unprecedented approval of settlement construction, and orders to erase numerous Bedouin communities around Jerusalem. All these drastic measures would stand to shore up popularity for Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, especially among the younger right-wing voting bloc of Israeli settlers.
In other words, the way in which the Netanyahu government seeks to strengthen its electoral prospects will invariably come at the expense of Palestinians — and the other peoples of the region.
Trump’s government-wide NDA (non disclosure agreement) seeks to silence whistleblowers

May 26, 2026 / Freedom of the Press Foundation, https://freedom.press/the-classifieds/trumps-government-wide-nda-seeks-to-silence-whistleblowers/
Washington, D.C., May 26, 2026 — The Washington Post reported today that the Trump administration is planning a broad, government-wide nondisclosure agreement to combat leaks to the press.
The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper:
“The proposal by the ‘most transparent administration in history’ that millions of federal employees sign a blanket NDA is not just absurd, it’s unnecessary and dangerously secretive.
“This policy, from a president who has previously attempted to impose oppressive, corporate-style confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements on federal employees, would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and wrongly inhibit the public’s right to know. It comes at a time when agency watchdogs are sidelined, FOIA officials are being fired, and leaks to the press — which are the sole reason the public knows about so much of this administration’s misconduct — are being demonized and prosecuted.
“We know exactly what kind of information the administration wants to bury. Look no further than the FOIA release to Freedom of the Press Foundation that showed the administration had no solid legal rationale for conducting mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, substantiating a leak the administration called ‘fake news’ and cited as false justification for loosening restrictions on subpoenas to reporters.
“Trying to force the entire federal government to adopt the Trump organization’s aggressive use of NDAs won’t make anybody safer and won’t improve agency processes. Its sole intent would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
With potential Iranian deal on the horizon, MAGA media’s drawing red lines
by Jason Campbell, 26 May 26, https://www.mediamatters.org/media-matters-weekly-newsletter/media-matters-weekly-newsletter-may-29#paragraph–narrative-item–3479479
Deep divisions have emerged in right-wing media since President Donald Trump started a war with Iran three months ago. Some conservative media figures have loudly supported Trump’s war while others have been extremely and vocally opposed to new entanglements in the Middle East. Many figures fell somewhere in the middle, tepidly supporting the president while urging for a quick end to the conflict. With a potential deal (again) reportedly on the horizon, some voices on the right are starting to draw their hard lines for an end to the conflict.
The infighting between right-wing media pundits over the war has at times been deeply personal. This week, for example, Fox’s Mark Levin and podcaster Benny Johnson traded blows over the war. Johnson, who has been supporting Trump but also urging for a swift end to the fighting, said, “I don’t understand people like Mark Levin,” and then asked “How many people do you think are being paid by Israel?” Levin, a staunch supporter of the conflict, fired back at “BJ Benny Johnson,” saying, “He’s been a grifter.” Levin also said “Benny Johnson, a nobody, and his ilk. And his ilk, they’re the ones who trash the president. They give aid and comfort to the Iranian Islamic regime.”
With a potential deal coming, some right-wing figures are already laying out what would be tolerable for the Trump administration to accept. Ben Shapiro, who has consistently taken a hardline stance supporting the war, laid out some red lines for a deal, including claiming that the United States cannot give Iran money to rebuild its infrastructure. A Charlie Kirk Show producer said the proposed deal is “not a perfect deal” and “would be getting us back to the situation before the war.” Fox’s Martha MacCallum commented on the potential deal, saying, “It doesn’t feel like we’re any closer than we were before.” On Fox News, staunch war supporter Jack Keane said the U.S. can’t give Iran immediate sanctions relief. A Newsmax host said the reported deal with Iran “sounds like a pretty bad deal.”
The war with Iran has caused serious turmoil inside Trump’s MAGA base. With the disastrous effects of rising fuel prices accumulating and the war’s catastrophic unpopularity with the American people growing, the political need for a swift end to the conflict may butt up against MAGA hardliners who want to see Iran capitulate further.
President Donald Trump, amid ongoing negotiations with Iran and a new spate of U.S. military strikes against it, spent part of Tuesday morning watching Fox News and then posting thanks on social media to on-air commentators who praised his efforts in the region.
U.S. and Iranian diplomats are once again negotiating toward an agreement to end the three-month war. Against this backdrop, Trump spent his Tuesday morning watching Fox News, a typical source for both information that shapes his worldview and praise to salve his various grievances. We know this because he posted on social media about segments that captured his fancy soon after they aired, a phenomenon Media Matters’ Matt Gertz termed the Fox-Trump feedback loop.
Major domestic and international affairs can turn on what Trump sees on Fox, though whatever he ends up deciding to do, the network’s hosts will surely fall in line behind their Dear Leader.
- Excuse me?
- Newsmax host Carl Higbie responded to a hunger strike at the Delaney Hall ICE detention center, saying “If they want to not eat, that’s on them. I don’t really care. Saves us some taxpayer money, I guess.” Fox’s Greg Gutfeld also commented on the food in Delaney Hall, saying, “Maggots or not, the food is dietitian approved.”
- Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts argued “there ought to be certain restrictions against not just religions, but particular political implementations of religions.”
- Speaking about Iran, Fox’s Laura Ingraham admitted “All of their military sites, I guess, have not been destroyed.”
- In the 19 hours following the breaking news, Fox News failed to cover the Justice Department’s new criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, who previously won a civil judgment against Trump that he had sexually abused and defamed her. In contrast, all 12 CNN shows that aired after the news broke covered the story, and 7 of 8 such MS NOW programs covered it.
After New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled his plans to make affordable housing more available in the city, Fox News personalities and guests fixated on the plan’s efforts combating negligent landlords. They declared that enforcement against negligent landlords amounted to “public theft,” said it was a “throwback to Stalin,” and ranted that legal action to turn over properties from them to more responsible stewards will lead to “mass killing” and similar atrocities.
Fox hosts have also peddled the myth of tax flight, which you can read about here.
Extreme Heat Headlines Obscure The Scale Of The Crisis

Nate Bear, May 29, 2026, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/extreme-heat-headlines-obscure-the
It’s been record hot in parts of Europe and Asia over the last week and this has provoked an outburst of three things that have become de rigeur whenever this happens:
- Climate change scepticism
- Exclusive focus on heat by legacy media
- Divorced context
The first one is baked in to the conversation, you might say, if you were reaching for an appropriate metaphor. And normally I’d not be that bothered. But I’ve been seeing more of it across my social media, especially on Twitter/X, and the explanation I think is two-fold.
Firstly, and most obviously, Musk and Nikita Bier, the guy in control of the algorithm, boost right-wing accounts by policy, which means scepticism and denial at moments of climate extremes become more visible, given these positions tend to be rightist in nature. Secondly, despite my leftist politics, my anti-Zionism and pro-Palestine writings have attracted people who approach anti-Zionism from a more right-wing, pro-sovereignty, pro-nationalist perspective. These people, my intuition tells me, put climate change and Zionism in the same bracket – as a mainstream, elite-led “narrative” to be rejected. As such I’ve been seeing some of these accounts, who I agree with on Israel, Palestine, imperialism and Zionism, in my feed posting content and takes sceptical of climate change.
To me, this is not a coherent politics. Zionism and a heating planet grow from the same root. Imperialism is a fuel source for climate change, and anti-imperialism cannot be separated from ecological destruction. The Pentagon is the single biggest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases, burning more fossil fuels annually than entire countries like Portugal, Sweden and Denmark. An empire which projects global power and launches missiles thousands of miles from its shores to impose its violent will on the world could not survive without fossil fuels. Which is why, among many other reasons, Trump, and US empire historically, have loved oil so much.
In the first 15 months of the genocide in Gaza, Israel burnt more fossil fuels than Estonia and Costa Rica burn in a year combined.
Now it’s been more than two and a half years, the ecological cost to the atmosphere of genociding Gaza and mass murdering Palestinians will be equivalent to the pollution necessary to power the lives of tens of millions of people. But instead of using fossil fuels to provide the necessities of life, Zionism uses fossil fuels on a massive scale to end lives. Zionism kills Palestinians as a first order effect, and then boosts the heatwaves that cause death and suffering years later.
That brings me to number two.
A heating planet is just one outgrowth of the current global system, yet far too often legacy media ignores the vast scale of the ecological crisis to focus narrowly on climate change. And this is where an argument for climate as a narrative can be made, but it’s not the argument made by those who scorn it as a tool to provoke fear and impose control. If climate change is pushed as a narrative, it’s because an easy solution can be sold within the existing confines of globalised neoliberal capital. A transition to solar and wind, fuelled by mega-mining companies blasting the holes and digging up the minerals which are transported by the mega-shippers, the market lubricated by metals traders, with the profits captured by the energy giants.
Crucially, in this telling of the crisis, nothing really has to change. On the contrary in fact. In this telling, capitalist growth policies become essential to combating climate change.
The root of climate change as a mainstream narrative is better understood then as seeded in and growing out of imperialist-capitalist relations, not conspiracist adjacent globalist plots.
Which brings me to complaint number three.
If the crisis is understood not just as a climate crisis but as a whole-system ecological crisis underpinned by the existing system of globalised neoliberal capital, no easy, sellable solutions can be proffered. If our ecological predicament is understood as encompassing greenhouses gases, plastic pollution, ocean acidification, nitrogen pollution, tropical forest destruction, ozone depletion and species extinction, the story of the crisis becomes far harder to tell as a soundbite. If ecological damage is assessed not just in terms of extreme heat but in terms of an integrated system under a multi-faceted assault, the breadth and scale of the problem quite obviously defies any singular, energy source-focused solution.
Taking the crisis as a whole would require a discussion which slays sacred capitalist cows, confronts elite power structures and concludes with the necessity to completely reshape not just energy systems, but many of the systems which drive our civilisation. It would require serious policies that reject global capital and move us towards sustainable, local systems that benefit communities not oligarchic structures and corporate entities, whether that be in energy, farming, tourism or trade.
Here’s the unifying kicker: a politics of true global sustainability would require the same kind of revolutionary thinking and action that would also end imperialism and Zionism.
In conclusion, yes, the world is heating up, and that’s because of the extraordinary increase in the rate at which carbon dioxide is being released from burning fossil fuels. And yes, this heating will have to stop or lots of people will die and the system will collapse. But fossil fuels can be used usefully or badly, and the externalities of their burning (the heat trapping pollution) can be more, or less, worth the cost of burning them.
Genocide, conquest and imperialism are vile and depraved ways to use any energy resource, let alone a non-renewable one that has planetary effects long into the future.
To be honest, I may have written this article for an audience that doesn’t exist. But I have been frustrated for a long time now with how ecological collapse has been so divorced from the majority of anti-imperial thought. I think that is also partly to do with a belief that imperialists weaponise climate change to demonise, for example, China’s use of coal or Venezuela’s use of its oil revenues (now of course captured by empire).
I understand this perspective, and imperialist media definitely does this.
But that isn’t a reason to pretend basic physics is wrong or to write off climate change as a conspiracy or a globalist plot.
It’s a reason to think more deeply about how and why climate change is presented to us as a problem in the way that it is, not a reason to doubt whether it is a problem at all.
Global heating is making hajj ever more dangerous, report finds

Global heating has “fundamentally altered” the climate of Mecca and is
exposing millions of hajj pilgrims to extreme and dangerous heat even in
months outside summer, new analysis has found.
Carbon dioxide emissions
from fossil fuels means scorching temperatures of 40C (104F) are now
regularly experienced in May, the study showed. In past decades, such peaks
would only have occurred in summer. The researchers said that hajj, the
annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, would take place amid dangerous heat
almost all year round by the end of the century without a rapid transition
away from fossil fuels.
Saudi Arabia, which hosts hajj, is the world’s
second biggest oil producer and a long-term obstructer of climate action.
Guardian 29th May 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/29/global-heating-hajj-muslim-pilgrimage-saudi-arabia-dangerous
-
Archives
- November 2026 (12)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS






