nuclear-news

DePetris’ Trump foreign policy accomplishments more dubious than prideful

Walt Zlotow… West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 3 Jan 26

In his Chicago Tribune foreign policy commentary ‘The foreign policy moves Donald Trump got right this year’, Daniel DePetris largely ignores reality.

He praises Trump for brokering the November 10 ceasefire agreement in Gaza without mentioning that for nearly 10 months Trump provided Israel with billions in weapons to complete the obliteration of Gaza’s 139 square miles. With over 100,000 dead and the remaining 2,200,000 Palestinians facing death from forced starvation and withdrawal of medicine, the world rightly calls Israeli US policy a genocide. So yes, DePetris is correct to call Trump’s slowing down Israel’s ferocious genocide thru ceasefire “preferable” to its continuance. But pretending Trump is simply a neutral peace broker of the US enabled Israeli genocide is deplorable.

DePetris is also correct to praise Trump for seeking to broker an end to the Russo Ukraine war. But in claiming the biggest obstacle with Trump’s diplomacy is Trump’s “wild inconsistency”, DePetris misses a far greater obstacle: Russia and Ukraine’s diametrically opposed and irreconcilable goals to end the war. That makes Trump’s sincere efforts at peace daunting, if not impossible. At this stage, it is nowhere near an accomplishment.

DePetris whiffs on his third claimed Trump foreign policy accomplishment, the overthrow of the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, replaced by former al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmad al-Sharaa.

DePetris, like Trump, rehabilitates a US enemy dedicated to killing Americans in Iraq in his previous life. Why? Because al-Sharaa deposed the hated Assad whom the US sought to oust since the 2011 Syrian civil war to remove one of Israel’s regional enemies. This had nothing to do with uplifting the Syrian people. Indeed, the billions in weapons America poured into the Syrian civil war was responsible for much of the hundreds of thousands of deaths DePetris attributes solely to Assad. With the secular Assad gone, Syria’s Christians, Alawites, and others not part of al Sharaa’s extremist religious base are suffering horribly. Their fate was never a concern of Trump and his champion DePetris who view the destabilization of Syria as a US win for expanded Israeli Middle East hegemony.

Chicago Tribune’s readers deserve more than a sanitized view of Trump’s machinations in Gaza, Ukraine and Syria. They deserve the truth.

January 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

WE’LL CONTROL THE OIL! — TRUMP BOASTS AFTER SECRET RAID AS WASHINGTON POST CHEERS ARREST.

 “we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year. There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”

 January 3, 2026 , By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/03/well-control-the-oil-trump-boasts-after-secret-raid-as-washington-post-cheers-arrest/

In a reprehensible editorial, The Washington Post praised the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, calling the U.S.-led operation as “Justice in Venezuela” saying it was “one of the boldest moves by a president in recent years” and a tactical success. According to reports, the mission in Caracas involved airstrikes followed by a Delta Force operation that apprehended Maduro and his wife, who have been extradited to the U.S. to face charges including narcoterrorism, weapons violations, and drug crimes—all with no American casualties. The editorial argued that removing Maduro would weaken the influence of authoritarian allies such as Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran in the region and send a strong message to other dictators.

The piece also noted that the next challenge is ensuring stability and a democratic transition in Venezuela, highlighting opposition leader María Corina Machado and her “Freedom Manifesto” as a potential path forward. At the same time, the editorial acknowledged the uncertainty of outcomes, warning that a power vacuum or a new authoritarian leader could emerge if a clear transition plan is not implemented.

Machado was quoted as saying the opposition is “prepared to take power,” though no specifics regarding a transition plan have been released.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Machado, who has been in hiding since Maduro’s disputed reelection in July 2024, said in a post on X that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, whom the opposition says won the vote, “must immediately assume his constitutional mandate” as president. and that “Venezuelans, the hour of freedom has arrived.”

Not everyone welcomed the operation. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the attack and said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had “repeatedly denied to Congress” that the administration intended to “force regime change in Venezuela.” Himes added, “Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos.”

Others highlight the split between the GOP and the Democrats.

“Nicolás Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug‑trafficking operation,” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton, defending the mission and saying he commends Trump and U.S. forces.

The split was evident at first with Utah Senator Mike Lee. Notably, the Republican initially seemed critical of the action being taken without congressional authorization.

“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.

However, Lee later followed up, saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action. Because the administration is framing this not as a war but as a police action to arrest a fugitive, Lee said he believes it would be permissible under the president’s current authority. I wonder we have heard that term police action before?

From the Democratic side, the sentiment was nearly unanimous.

“Without authorization from Congress … Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern wrote on social media, highlighting a lack of legislative approval.

“Second unjustified war in my life time,” Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, on X shortly after 3 a.m. Saturday. “This war is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year. There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”

Sen Andy Kim writing on X: “Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth looked every Senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn’t about regime change. I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress.”

Others Democrats, including Rep. Yvette Clarke and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, called the operation “unconstitutional,” “un‑American,” and a “direct threat to our democracy,” arguing that the administration bypassed Congress.

The president spoke about a great many things, including taking over the country, which again would fall in line with the concept of the historic police action that took place in Southeast Asia. As Gallego said, this may be the second illegal war in our lifetime; it is certainly not the only two that the United States has been involved in.

As Trump said, he’s not afraid of putting boots on the ground.

Trump had the gall to say today that his administration will make the people of Venezuela  “rich, independent, and safe.”  But he doesn’t mean most people—the poor and working-class citizens whom the socialist government represents. He means the oligarchs: the wealthy and powerful few. Trump is clearly the leader of the oligarchs, so this isn’t surprising—yet it is still deeply sickening.

Of course, this feels a lot like George W. Bush’s horrific war in Iraq, which was more about the pride of a leader whose father couldn’t topple Saddam Hussein. In this case, it seems driven by Rubio’s long-standing fantasy of a life in Cuba, surrounded by the wealth of oligarchs—something his family could have aspired to. Now, he is helping push a new Monroe Doctrine and supporting the rise of right-wing forces in Latin America.

Regarding oil, many in 2003 foolishly claimed that oil profits would cover the costs of the Iraq War. In the lead-up to the invasion, U.S. officials expressed strong confidence that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction, largely through its vast oil reserves and other national assets. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld emphasized that American taxpayers would not be the primary source of funding, pointing instead to Iraq’s own resources and potential international contributions. Similarly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress that Iraq could fund its recovery “relatively soon,” citing the wealth of the Iraqi people. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council official, dismissed the idea of massive U.S. expenditures as “unimaginable,” suggesting that even tens of billions of dollars in spending would be “highly unlikely.” These statements collectively painted a picture of Iraq as a “very wealthy country,” with officials expressing little doubt that it could largely finance the reconstruction of its own nation.

On the parallels between Iraq and Venezuela, I’ll leave this to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as quoted in Ron Suskind’s book about Paul O’Neill. Advocating “going after Saddam” during the January 30 meeting, Rumsfeld said, according to O’Neill:

“Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about”

Exactly, Donald—the empire was always the goal. The idea of democracy was just a shield to make us seem less evil than those who came before, especially our original colonial parent the English. But now the veil is off: we are brazenly invading countries and claiming what belongs to them as our own. I’ve written before—may the empire end, hopefully peacefully, though most likely it will not.

However, in another display of both war talk and regime change, the president said he’s not afraid of boots on the ground, since they have already been there. So if the people of Venezuela resist, as they have promised, and your justification for a fugitive is now gone, what will you do? Ironically, this is from The Washington Post, but as a member of Congress once told me, you need to read the paper daily to know what the CIA and the policy establishment think.

About oil, the war, and the current situation. As of now Chevron is currently the only global oil company with access to Venezuela’s vast reserves.

As Bloomberg’s Kevin Crowley noted last month, the company occupies a unique position: it has faced criticism in the U.S. for continuing to operate in the country, while some members of Venezuela’s ruling party view it as a symbol of American imperialism. Chevron has been able to maintain its presence thanks to special licenses that allow it to operate despite U.S. sanctions.

Venezuela once played a central role in global oil markets, supplying the U.S. with large volumes of crude and standing as an oil powerhouse. Today, however, it accounts for less than 1% of global oil supplies—less than fellow OPEC member Libya.

However, don’t expect a rapid recovery in Venezuelan oil production—whether or not the U.S. is heavily involved. History shows that violent regime changes rarely encourage inward investment. Fourteen years after Muammar Qaddafi’s removal, Libya’s oil production remains about 25% below its pre-war level. In Iraq, where the U.S. had a major administrative role after toppling Saddam Hussein, it took 12 years for oil production to return to pre-war levels—and much of the new production came from Chinese companies rather than U.S. firms.

Trump said today that “we will control those Venezuelan oil fields.” Let’s see, sir. It’s not nearly as easy as you think. Based on the history of wars that involve oil.

More notes from the presidents speech

Rubio discussed today why Congress was not informed, claiming that this was not a war but rather a Justice Department arrest, and that the individual in question is a fugitive of American justice.

He described the situation as a “president of action,” saying, “I don’t know how we haven’t figured this out. Marco, we have figured it out. The president is a man of action, and he—and this neocon-aligned regime—need to go. Sadly with The Washington Post pushing its editorial agenda, alternative media is essential, because the mainstream press is controlled by you and your oligarch allies. Of course so is social media and almost everything else, I would hope—but not hold my breath—that the same Democrats who are criticizing today’s events would also ensure we have a free and fair media. Yet many in this Congress supported President Biden when he pushed for the forced sale of TikTok to Larry Ellison, so…

Keep hope alive

January 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

WHAT CHAOS WILL TRUMP UNLEASH IN 2026?

The evidence of 2025 suggests a president who is alternately reckless and bored

Seymour Hersh, Jan 03, 2026

One of my favorite anecdotes occurred sometime after 9/11 when Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain, joined in with America’s declaration of war against terrorism. The brilliant playwright Harold Pinter, who would be a bitter and prolific critic of the ensuing war, was invited to respond before the House of Commons. He began his talk with a tale from British history during a wave of terror in Ireland.

“There’s an old story about Oliver Cromwell. After he had taken the town of Drogheda, the citizens were brought to the main square. Cromwell announced to his lieutenants: ‘Right! Kill all the women and rape all the men.’ One of his aides said: ‘Excuse me, General. Isn’t it the other way around?’ A voice from the crowd called out: ‘Mr. Cromwell knows what he is doing!’”

In Pinter’s telling, the voice of support from the crowd was Blair’s. Today it could and would come from the lips of Vance, Bondi, Hegseth, or Noem. Never has a modern American president been surrounded by such self-important sycophants and a Republican-led Congress with little gumption. Trump’s lack of interest in nonmilitary briefing papers and his obsession with social and political gossip has moved from information known by a few to standard operating procedure………………….(Subscribers only) https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-chaos-will-trump-unleash-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1377040&post_id=183249150&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

January 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Plans Largest Nuclear Power Program Since the 1970s 

How many reactors will $80 billion buy?

Chief executives of investor-owned utilities know that if they were to propose committing to similar projects on the same commercial terms, they’d be sacked on the spot. As a result, the private sector in the United States has been unwilling to take on the financial risk inherent in building new reactors.

Ed Crooks, IEEESpectrum,17 Dec 2025

The United States aims to embark on its most active new nuclear construction program since the 1970s. In its most high-dollar nuclear deal yet, the Trump administration in October launched a partnership to build at least $80 billion worth of new, large-scale nuclear reactors, and chose Westinghouse Electric Company and its co-owners, Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco, for the job.

The money will support the construction of AP1000s, a type of pressurized water reactor developed by Westinghouse that can generate about 1,110 megawatts of electric power. These are the same reactors as units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia, which wrapped up seven years behind schedule in 2023 and 2024 and cost more than twice as much as expected—about $35 billion for the pair. Along the way, Westinghouse, based in Cranberry Township, Penn., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Chief executives of investor-owned utilities know that if they were to propose committing to similar projects on the same commercial terms, they’d be sacked on the spot. As a result, the private sector in the United States has been unwilling to take on the financial risk inherent in building new reactors.

The $80 billion deal with the federal government represents the U.S. nuclear industry’s best opportunity in a generation for a large-scale construction program. But ambition doesn’t guarantee successful execution. The delays and cost overruns that dogged the Vogtle project present real threats for the next wave of reactors……………………………………………………………………………………..

One of Trump’s orders included a series of provisions intended to help build the U.S. nuclear workforce, but it’s clear that that will be a challenge. The momentum gained in training skilled workers during the construction at Vogtle is already dissipating. Without other active new reactor projects to move on to immediately in the United States, many of the people who worked there have likely gone into other sectors, such as liquified natural gas (LNG) plants………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 the plans that have been announced so far pale in comparison to the Trump administration’s nuclear ambitions. Earlier this year, Trump set a goal of adding a whopping 300 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, up from a little under 100 GW today. That would mean much stronger growth than is currently projected in Wood Mackenzie’s forecasts, which show a near-doubling of U.S. nuclear generation capacity to about 190 GW in 2050.

The main driver behind the Trump administration’s interest in nuclear is its ambitions for artificial intelligence. Chris Wright, the U.S. energy secretary, has described the race to develop advanced AI as the Manhattan Project of our times, critical to national security, and dependent upon a steep increase in electricity generation. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in September, Wright promised: “We’re doing everything we can to make it easy to build power generation and data centers in our country.”

One of the hallmarks of the Trump administration has been its readiness to intervene in markets to pursue its policy goals. Its nuclear strategy exemplifies that approach.In many ways, the Trump administration is acting like an energy company: using its financial strength and its convening power to put together a deal that covers the entire nuclear value chain.

Throughout the history of nuclear power, the industry has worked closely with governments. But the federal government effectively taking a commercial position in the development of new reactors would be a first for the United States…………………………………………..https://spectrum.ieee.org/80-billion-us-nuclear-power

January 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Secretary of State Rubio Believes U.S. Recovered Alien Tech And Gave It To Private Military Contractors.

“We are headed toward massive disclosure,” says a senior advisor to America’s top diplomat and Trump’s National Security Advisor

Michael Shellenberger, Dec 03, 2025

Since May of this year, Marco Rubio has served in a dual role as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The National Security Advisor is the President’s principal in-house advisor on all national security matters, chairs the National Security Council, coordinates the interagency process across the government, and briefs the President daily.

As Secretary of State, Rubio negotiates treaties, appoints and directs ambassadors, controls the $84 billion State Department and USAID budget, oversees 80,000 employees at more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide, and has direct authority over diplomatic security, intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens abroad.

The last official to hold both such positions was Henry Kissinger from 1973 to 1975. For Rubio, who was also the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to play both roles reflects President Trump’s high confidence in him.

As such, it is significant that Rubio believes that elements within the US government have recovered technology from a nonhuman intelligence, reverse-engineered it, and let private military contractors take control of it in ways that could be undermining national security and result in a Pearl Harbor-like event.

“The real risk in transferring technology that is not useful to us today to a corporate entity over decades,” says Rubio, “is that the corporate entity comes to basically possess and control access to it for their own purposes, not for the purposes of national security.”

Nick Pope, who investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) for the UK Ministry of Defence, said, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of [Rubio’s] statement. Rubio’s remarks are so forthright that one could speculate they’re officially-authorized prelude to Disclosure, to test the waters ahead of an official, Presidential announcement.”…………………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.public.news/p/secretary-of-state-rubio-believes

∙ 

December 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s first step to becoming a would-be autocrat – hijacking a party

The Conversation, December 29, 2025, Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor, Erica Frantz, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-first-step-to-becoming-a-would-be-autocrat-hijacking-a-party-271849?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2029%202025%20-%203630637075&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2029%202025%20-%203630637075+CID_f48f66e694ca700aadd909617ad57a30&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Donald%20Trumps%20first%20step%20to%20becoming%20a%20would-be%20autocrat%20%20hijacking%20a%20party

In this six-part podcast series, The Making of an Autocrat, we are asking six experts on authoritarianism and US politics to explain how exactly an autocrat is made – and whether Trump is on his way to becoming one.

Like strongmen around the world, Trump’s first step was to take control of a party, explains Erica Frantz, associate professor of political science at Michigan State University.

Trump began this process long before his victory in the 2024 US presidential election. When he first entered the political stage in 2015, he started to transform the Republican Party into his party, alienating his critics, elevating his loyalists to positions of power and maintaining total control through threats and intimidation.

And once a would-be autocrat dominates a party like this, they have a legitimate vehicle to begin dismantling a democracy. As Frantz explains:

Now, many Republican elites see it as political suicide to stand up to Trump. So, fast forward to 2024, and we have a very personalist Trump party – the party is synonymous with Trump.

Not only does the party have a majority in the legislature, but it is Trump’s vehicle. And our research has shown this is a major red flag for democracy. It’s going to enable Trump to get rid of executive constraints in a variety of domains, which he has, and pursue his strongman agenda.

December 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

The 2025 nuclear year in review: Back to the Future Atomic Age

Bulletin, By François Diaz-Maurin | December 25, 2025

“……………………………………………………………… In many ways, 2025 resembled Back to the Future, and not only because Donald Trump—whom the trilogy’s villain Biff is admittedly based on—returned to the White House in January. Less than one year into his second term, President Trump has exhibited Cold War-era thinking several times already.

One week after entering the presidency, Trump announced his plan for a new, comprehensive missile-defense system that his administration later called Golden Dome and claimed would be built in three years at a cost of no more than $175 billion. Many missile defense experts have pointed to the project’s technical and policy flaws and called it a fantasy that will add to a long-running US missile defense debacle. The fantasy started with President Ronald Reagan’s dream of building a missile shield—which he called the Strategic Defense Initiative and that detractors called “Star Wars”—after record Soviet nuclear deployments in—wait for it—1985. Experts warned that the Golden Dome proposal is self-defeating, as it will prompt US adversaries to build more maneuverable missiles and use more decoys, rendering any national defense ineffective.

A few days after announcing his missile defense effort, President Trump told reporters about his desire to engage with Russia and China on denuclearization efforts. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” he said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons, and China’s building nuclear weapons.” But New START, the only agreement constraining the number of strategic offensive weapons that the United States and Russia can deploy, is set to expire in less than two months. And as of writing, Moscow maintains that it hasn’t received any formal response.

Around the time of Trump’s denuclearization comments, his administration’s Department of Government Efficiency started firing new federal hires, including hundreds at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Energy Department agency responsible for the safety and security of the US nuclear arsenal. (Most of the NNSA employees fired were eventually rehired after a bipartisan uproar in Congress.) The NNSA and its network of national laboratories provide essential technical support to the State Department for nuclear arms control verification. In July, the Trump administration dissolved the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, which was responsible for policy, negotiation, and overall compliance reporting of arms control treaties.

In May, President Trump signed four executive orders on nuclear power to accelerate nuclear power plant construction in the United States and support new, smaller, and less-regulated reactor designs. One of the orders plans a “substantial reorganization” of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a plan three former chairs of the NRC say would threaten the independence of the agency, possibly undermining the safety requirements for nuclear regulation.

The same month, a brief skirmish started at the border between India and Pakistan, which seemed to quickly escalate, prompting President Trump to call for restraint from both sides. As a ceasefire agreement that Trump said he helped broker was being announced, reports suggested that, during the conflict, Pakistan’s Prime Minister had convened the National Command Authority, apparently in response to India’s targeting of Pakistani military bases. The National Command Authority is responsible for Pakistan’s nuclear policy and operational decision-making. (Pakistan’s defense minister later denied that the meeting ever happened.)

Then came the worst international security crisis of the year.

In June, two days after Trump said Iran rejected the US proposal for a nuclear deal that included a demand that it stop enriching uranium on Iranian soil, Israel attacked Iran, targeting military leaders, nuclear facilities, and nuclear scientists. About a week later, the United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. While Trump touted the attack as “very successful,” the status of Iran’s nuclear program remained unclear after the attack, and later reports suggested that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium may not have been destroyed. Some experts warned before the attack that destroying Iran’s enrichment plants would not eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat and that a US action might spur Iran to covertly sprint toward a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible.

In July, in a surprising congressional twist, the House passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) reauthorization and expansion bill. As a result, communities affected by the 1945 Trinity nuclear test and uranium mining in areas of Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, the Navajo Nation and all of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, as well as downwinders in Guam exposed to fallout from the Pacific nuclear tests during the Cold War started receiving compensation for their radiation exposure this year. (These groups were not initially covered by RECA.)

As if the legacy of US nuclear testing wasn’t painful enough, President Trump suggested in October that the United States should return to nuclear testing, confusing experts who could not tell whether the president was referring to testing a nuclear delivery system (such as a missile) or testing an actual nuclear explosive device. Many experts had already explained how resuming nuclear explosive testing would be impractical and against US security interests.

There have been many other nuclear developments in 2025 that also pointed in the direction of more risk and more instability. But one stood out: In a shocking sign that shows how much the nuclear security landscape has been turned on its head, this past week, a member of Japan’s prime minister’s office who advises Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on national security told reporters that Japan “should possess nuclear weapons.” These remarks came just months after Japan commemorated the 80th anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Whether the world has already entered a new nuclear age marked by renewed arms racing is up for debate. But nuclear affairs have made a strong and undeniable comeback on the front pages of many newspapers this year—something unseen since the end of the Cold War. Even in Hollywood, film directors are daring to talk about nuclear risk once again with a plethora of new and upcoming releases, including this year’s much-remarked A House of Dynamite.

When it reconvenes in January, let’s hope the US administration comes back to the present and sets about a new start in nuclear arms control and diplomacy.

Of course, I couldn’t close this year-end review without mentioning the passing of way too many important figures from the nuclear nonproliferation and arms control community, including Bob Alvarez, Dick Garwin, Dan Hirsch, R. Rajaraman, and (late last year) Evgeny Velikhov. Each stood in their own way for the reduction of the risk from nuclear weapons and pushed for the diplomatic and science-based disarmament or arms control solutions that have been at the core of the Bulletin’s mission since 1945.

Here are five Bulletin nuclear stories that stood out in 2025—and that you should read…………………………………………………. https://thebulletin.org/2025/12/the-2025-nuclear-year-in-review-back-to-the-future-atomic-age/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2025%20nuclear%20year%20in%20review&utm_campaign=20251225%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

December 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s Nuclear Obsession

Karl Grossman – Harvey Wasserman, December 24, 2025 , https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/12/24/trumps-nuclear-obsession/

The Trump family is now directly investing in atomic energy.  Its money-losing Truth Social company has become a part owner of a major fusion nuclear power project.

Among much more, the investments mean the Trump family stands to profit directly from White House attacks on wind, solar and other cheap, clean renewable energies which for decades have been driving fusion, fission and fossil fuels toward economic oblivion.

“A Trump-sponsored business is once again betting on an industry that the president has championed, further entwining his personal fortunes in sectors that his administration is both supporting and overseeing,” reported an article on the front page of the business section of the New York Times last week. “This one is in the nuclear power sector. TAE Technologies, which is developing fusion energy, said on Thursday that it planned to merge with Trump Media & Technology Group. President Trump is the largest shareholder of the money-losing social media and crypto investment firm that bears his name, and he will remain a major investor in the combined company.”

The headline of the piece: “Trump’s Push Into Nuclear Is Raising Questions.”

The primary asks have to do with economic conflicts of interest, and public safety.

“The deal, should it be completed,” the article continued, “would put Mr. Trump in competition with other energy companies over which his administration holds financial and regulatory sway. Already, the president has sought to gut safety oversight of nuclear power plants and lower thresholds for human radiation exposure.”

CNN reported: “Nuclear fusion companies are regulated by the federal government and will likely need Uncle Sam’s deep research and even deeper pockets to become commercially viable. The merger needs to be approved by federal regulators—some of whom were nominated by Trump.”

CNN quoted Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, as saying: “There is a clear conflict of interest here. Every other president since the Civil War has divested from business interests that would conflict with official duties. President Trump has done the opposite.” Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

“Having the president and his family have a large stake in a particular energy source is very problematic,” said Peter A. Bradford, who previously served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency meant to oversee the nuclear industry in the United States, in the Times article.

“The Trump administration has sought to accelerate nuclear power technology—including fusion, which remains unproven,” Bradford said. “That support has come in the form of federal loans and grants, as well as executive orders directing the NRC to review and approve applications more quickly.”

Still, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement that “neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.” And the Times piece continued, “a spokeswoman for Trump Media” said the company was “scrupulously following all applicable rules and regulations, and any hypothetical speculation about ethics violations is wholly unsupported by the facts.”

It went on that “Trump’s stake in Trump Media, recently valued at $1.6 billion, is held in a trust managed by Donald Trump Jr., his eldest son. Trump Media is the parent company of Truth Social, the struggling social-media platform. The merger would set Trump Media in a new strategic direction, while giving TAE a stock market listing as it continues to develop its nuclear fusion technology.”

The Guardian quoted the CEO of Trump Media, Devin Nunes, the arch-conservative former member of the House of Representatives from California and close to Trump, who is currently chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, saying Trump Media has “built un-cancellable infrastructure to secure free expression online for Americans. And now we’re taking a big step forward toward a revolutionary technology that will cement America’s global energy dominance for generations.” Nunes is the would be co-CEO of the merged company.

A current member of the US House, Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement quoted in Politico that the deal raises “significant concerns” about conflicts of interest and avenues for potential corruption. “The President has consistently used both government powers and taxpayer money to benefit his own financial interests and those of his family and political allies. This merger will necessitate congressional oversight to ensure that the U.S. government and public funds are properly directed towards fusion research and development in ways that benefit the American people, as opposed to the Trump family and their corporate holdings.”

By federal law (the Price-Anderson Act of 1957) the US commercial atomic power industry has been shielded from liability in major accidents it might cause. The “Nuclear Clause” in every US homeowner’s insurance policy explicitly denies coverage for losses or damages caused, directly or indirectly, caused by a nuclear reactor accident.

As his company fuses with the atomic industry, Trump acquires a direct financial interest in gutting atomic oversight—which he has already been busy doing. In June Trump fired NRC Chairman Christopher T. Hanson. No other president has ever fired an NRC Commissioner.

. Earlier, more than 100 NRC staff were purged by Elon Musk’s DOGE operation. There has been a stream of Trump executive orders calling for a sharp reduction in radiation standards, expedited approval by the NRC of nuclear plant license applications, and a demand to quadruple nuke power in the United States—from the current 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts in 2050. Such a move would require huge federal subsidies and the virtual obliteration of safety regulations. Trump has essentially ordered the NRC to “rubber stamp” all requests from a nuclear industry in which he is now directly invested.

Trump’s Truth Social’s fusion ownership stake removes all doubt about any regulatory neutrality. No presently operating or proposed US atomic reactor can be considered certifiably safe.

Trump’s fusion investments are also bound to escalate Trump’s war against renewable energy and battery storage, the primary competitors facing the billionaire fossil/nuke army in which the Trump family is now formally enlisting. That membership blows to zero the credibility of any claim nuclear reactor backers might make that atomic energy can officially be considered safe.

December 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment