Nuclear option: Adi Roche says Ireland should commit to renewables rather than nukes.
in modern warfare, nuclear facilities themselves can function as potential radiological weapons — “dirty bombs” whose consequences could be catastrophic without a single warhead being deployed.
Chornobyl activist ADI ROCHE says Ireland should resist the push to adopt nuclear power generation,
Irish Examiner 11 May, 2026 -Adi Roche
I am a firm believer in the philosophy that “we do not own this Earth … we borrow it from our children and our children’s children” and that nothing is more important than the protection of our environment.
I constantly remind myself that this Earth is our common and only home, a beautiful grain of life spinning in the depths of the universe. But now, in a nuclear age, a time of grave mortal danger, with our very existence on the cusp, our planet has become so fragile in the hands of man.
This planet is our children’s inheritance, and we are only its custodians.
Ireland had long and healthy debates on the subject of nuclear power in the late ’70s and ’80s, and the people concluded that the inherent and unique dangers that come with it were not worth the risk for future generations.
Those “future generations” are now young adults and have the privilege of inheriting a nuclear-free Ireland.
So, the discussion on nuclear power, once more, needs to focus on those that have yet to be born and what kind of world we want them to inherit.
In this 40th anniversary year of the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of mankind, I am reminded that Chornobyl has become a symbol — a potent and enduring metaphor for catastrophe.
Chornobyl and Fukushima
It is a cautionary tale we need to take heed of, making sure it never happens again. If we do not learn from the past, we will not be able to understand the present or make proper decisions for our future.
Chornobyl and Fukushima are stark reminders of what can go wrong, with consequences that endure for generations exposing the vulnerability of humanity to sudden, profound change — whether from nature or from human hands.
None of the original arguments questioning nuclear power have changed. If anything, the world we now inhabit has deepened and sharpened them.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
When Russian troops invaded Ukraine through the “Chornobyl exclusion zone”, the most radioactive place on earth, the unthinkable became reality: A nuclear facility was transformed into an instrument of war with catastrophic potential. The invasion on February 24, 2024, marked a decisive turning point not only in geopolitics, but in how we must understand the true risks of nuclear energy.
This cavalier act made a nuclear threat without making a nuclear threat, and for the first time in the history of the atomic age, a nuclear power plant was weaponised not by firing missiles, but by occupying and controlling it.
The subsequent targeting and takeover of Zaporizhzhia demonstrated that, in modern warfare, nuclear facilities themselves can function as potential radiological weapons — “dirty bombs” whose consequences could be catastrophic without a single warhead being deployed.
We must re-examine how we look at energy through this deeply unsettling prism. The risks that once seemed theoretical are no longer abstract. They are immediate, real, and global.
Against this backdrop, Ireland must reject any drift towards nuclear power and instead commit fully to renewable, sustainable energy solutions.
Invest in renewables
Strong political will and sustained investment in research and development for renewable, clean energy, championed by pioneers such as Professor Brian Ó Gallachóir at UCC, represent the greatest gift we can offer to our world and to future generations.
Nuclear power depends on a highly radioactive finite resource, uranium, which, even when unmined, poses huge health damage risk. Studies suggest that, at current consumption rates, uranium supplies could be depleted within two decades. To invest heavily in a system reliant on a dwindling resource is short-sighted.
Against this backdrop, Ireland must reject any drift towards nuclear power and instead commit fully to renewable, sustainable energy solutions.
Invest in renewables
Strong political will and sustained investment in research and development for renewable, clean energy, championed by pioneers such as Professor Brian Ó Gallachóir at UCC, represent the greatest gift we can offer to our world and to future generations.
Nuclear power depends on a highly radioactive finite resource, uranium, which, even when unmined, poses huge health damage risk. Studies suggest that, at current consumption rates, uranium supplies could be depleted within two decades. To invest heavily in a system reliant on a dwindling resource is short-sighted.
At a time when Ireland is striving to build a resilient and sustainable energy future, replacing one finite resource with another is a false solution.
True sustainability lies in harnessing what is abundant and enduring: Wind, solar, tidal, and other renewable energies that are native to our island and free from geopolitical volatility.
Perhaps the most enduring indictment of nuclear power is one that has never been solved — the safe disposal of radioactive waste, which becomes the raw material for nuclear weapons. Decades into the nuclear age, there is still no permanent, fail-safe method of managing this hazardous material.
There are hundreds of extremely hazardous nuclear waste silos dotted around the world.
Nuclear waste remains radioactive for centuries and the risk of contamination, whether through leakage, human error, or environmental change, cannot be eliminated. The possibility that radioactive material could seep into water supplies or ecosystems is a burden we would impose not only on ourselves, but on countless future generations. What an unbearable weight of destruction we are placing on the shoulders of those yet to be born.
Ireland stands at an important crossroads. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to choose a different path. Rather than investing in a technology fraught with risk and uncertainty, we can lead by example in the transition to renewable energy totally powered by nature.
All we need is political vision, courage, and foresight for energy independence on behalf of future generations, so we are no longer reliant on the politics on the international stage.
The existential threats we face today are all created by human decisions. That means the solutions are also in our hands. Through co-operation, diplomacy, and moral leadership, it is still possible to reverse our current trajectory towards catastrophe.
Our windswept coasts, powerful tides, and advancing solar capacity offer us a sustainable, secure, and peaceful alternative.
By embracing renewables, we not only address the climate crisis, but also safeguard our future from the escalating risks of nuclear power in an unstable world……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41841921.html
No case for nuclear in Scotland
When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.
When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/05/10/no-case-for-nuclear-in-scotland/
What the country needs is the flexible, affordable power delivered by renewables, writes George Baxter
Editor’s note: With the sweeping victory in last week’s Scottish elections by the pro-independence Scottish National Party, the country’s moratorium against new nuclear power plants, that the SNP leads and supports, remains secure. The London-headquartered UK Labour Government has been pushing Scotland to lift the ban, an approach rightly viewed in Scotland as yet another example of Westminster treating Scotland as a vassal state.
I’ve been through every argument that the nuclear industry makes promoting new nuclear power stations – but scratch the surface and they just melt through the floor.
New nuclear is fundamentally not needed – numerous studies, including by Stanford University and renowned energy modellers at LUT show that the UK, and indeed most, if not all, other countries can meet their energy needs with 100% renewables. Politicians’ fears about the wind and sun and the rain and the waves and tides being unable to meet all our needs are misplaced. Renewables, energy storage, energy efficiency and flexible power with a modern upgraded grid can do it all – cheaper, quicker, safer and a hell of a lot cleaner, and create many more thousands of jobs.
The cost of nuclear power is eye-watering. Look at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – nearly £100bn to build them both with massive delays and cost -over-runs. That is enough to install a 5kWh battery in every one of the 28 million homes in Britain, and leave £44bn for other things. Combine that with solar and every home becomes a power station with its own ‘baseload’. Alternatively, £100bn could fund planned upgrades to the grid needed to facilitate large and small renewables, twice over. The Coire Glas pumped hydro storage project in the Highlands could be built 50 times over. £100bn spent on a nuclear-free transition could be revolutionary.
What a renewable based system needs is flexible power, energy storage and a smart, modern grid. Surplus renewable electricity could also be used to generate ”green hydrogen” to generate electricity on calm, dull days. It could also be used to power heavy transport and industry.
Battery systems, including compressed air and pumped storage hydro, alongside vehicle to grid technology, can all be parts of the bedrock of energy security and an energy system that would be cooking with green power 24/7.
Nuclear does nothing to help any of this. Indeed, it is worse, it directly causes wind and solar plants to be switched off when green power is plentiful, because nuclear is so inflexible. Not only does nuclear cost an arm and a leg, it adds cost to the consumer for renewables.
We only have to look at the recent history of nuclear power to see how dangerous and polluting it is. Fukushima remains a slow motion disaster for the region as they scramble to deal with millions of gallons of radioactive water and melted reactor cores. Chornobyl’s 40 year anniversary is another timely reminder, that when things go wrong, they can go very wrong. At least when a wind turbine breaks down – you don’t need an exclusion zone for decades and mass public health measures – you just get some engineers with a crane and some spanners to go fix it. And despite what the ‘nuke, baby, nuke’ lobby says, there is no solution for the waste yet, other than to store and guard the most highly radioactive cores for hundreds of years to cool down out of the way somewhere. That’s the solution!
The hype about Small Modular Reactors is just that, hype. In fact, the only two operational SMRs are in China and Russia, and both have been beset by delays and cost increases. The economies of scale are lost, and studies have shown that they produce more highly radioactive waste for the same generating capacity than their slightly larger cousins.
These projects are pure spin, a clever wheeze by industry lobbyists intended to promote nuclear acceptability- small, click and collect, a kind of middle-aisle at LIDL feel to it. In the words of energy expert Amory Lovins on SMRs: “This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift from selling products to harvesting subsidies.”
The Rolls Royce SMR – chosen by Great British Energy–Nuclear to be built at Wylfa in North Wales – is a 470MW reactor, not much smaller than the two Torness reactors, which are about 600MW each.
And then there is the fuel – uranium ore is needed and we don’t have any, (and the mining of it is handily missed out in nuclear promotional graphics comparing its land use to renewables, which also fail to point out that the land around solar arrays and turbines can still be used for traditional purposes).
Mind you, there is some recoverable uranium ore on the Orkney mainland – and when it was proposed to dig it up to use it at Dounreay last century, all hell broke loose and Orcadians stopped it by popular protest. So we would have to rely on imports of this global commodity – a market that is dominated by Russia and associates. Pete Roche of SCRAM put this well when commenting on a recent poll indicating only 14% of Scots thought we should focus on uranium fuelled nuclear reactors for our long term energy security needs: “Relying on a uranium-fuelled nuclear future is like jumping out of the oil and gas frying pan and into a nuclear fire – it makes no sense and Scots seem to get that.”
That Survation poll, surveyed 2000 Scots in the middle of the current election campaign, and found an overwhelming public preference to focus on a renewable energy future that would lower energy bills and tackle climate change more effectively. Only 12% of those polled thought the nuclear industry was the most trustworthy about its products, costs, pollutants and safety record.
When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.
We should just get on with building a country that is a renewable energy powerhouse so that future generations can look back and thank us for choosing a green, clean and sustainable energy route. Nuclear is NOT a natural partner with renewables, indeed, it is a delaying tactic, holding back rapid decarbonisation, and adds extra and unnecessary cost to a renewables-based energy system.
George Baxter is the director of Green Power. He leads Green Power’s team delivering greenfield wind and solar developments both in the UK and Ireland.
America’s Suicide Pact
Trump is not an outlier. He is the naked, stripped-down expression of this suicidal pact. He does not pretend the system he inherited works. He lies with less finesse. He crassly enriches himself and his family. He speaks in crude vulgarities. He dismantles any government agency dedicated to the common good, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the U.S. Postal Service. But he embodies what came before him, albeit without the liberal façade.
America’s suicidal march began long before Donald Trump. Trump and the buffoons around him are the inevitable final chapter of the decaying empire.
Chris Hedges, May 9, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/09/americas-suicide-pact/
Civilizations, as the historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously argued, “die from suicide, not by murder.” They collapse from within. They fall prey to moral, social and spiritual decay. They are seized by a parasitic ruling class. Democratic institutions seize up. The citizenry is immiserated, wealth is funneled upwards to the ruling class and coercion is the principle form of control.
Our suicidal march began long before Donald Trump and his bizarre court of buffoons, sycophants, grifters and Christian fascists took power. It began when the ruling class, especially under the Reagan and Clinton administrations, set out to harvest the country and empire for personal profit.
There is a word for these people. Traitors.
These traitors, ensconced in the leadership of the two ruling parties, stripped us of assets and power slowly. They used subterfuge, lies and legalized bribery. They pretended to honor electoral politics, checks and balances, a free press and the rule of law while subverting all of these democratic pillars. That old system, however flawed, was hollowed out. It was turned over to the amoral and the idiotic — look at the Supreme Court or Congress — those willing to do the bidding of the billionaire class.
Armed with billions by the mortal enemy of the demos — the oligarchs and corporations — the political elites, Republicans and Democrats, destroyed the careers of those politicians who resisted. They crushed labor unions. They blacklisted honest journalists and consolidated the press into the hands of a handful of corporations and oligarchs. They slashed regulations that constrained unfettered greed and protected the population from predatory corporations and environmental toxins. They passed legislation that created a de facto tax boycott for the rich — Trump famously paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the 15 years prior to his presidency — while stripping the country of its industry and throwing some 30 million people out of work. Wealth is no longer created by producing or manufacturing. It is created by manipulating the prices of stocks and commodities and imposing a crippling debt peonage on the public.
These parasites cut or abolished social programs, militarized the police, built the largest prison system in the world and pumped funds into a bloated and out-of-control war industry. German socialist and politician Karl Liebknecht, on the eve of the suicidal folly of World War I, called German imperialists “the enemy at home.” Our rulers, our enemies at home, mounted a series of futile wars that degraded the empire’s global hegemony and poured trillions of dollars of taxpayer money into their bank accounts. Iran is the most recent example.
Trump is not an outlier. He is the naked, stripped-down expression of this suicidal pact. He does not pretend the system he inherited works. He lies with less finesse. He crassly enriches himself and his family. He speaks in crude vulgarities. He dismantles any government agency dedicated to the common good, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the U.S. Postal Service. But he embodies what came before him, albeit without the liberal façade.
“Trump is not an anomaly,” I wrote in “America: The Farewell Tour”
He is the grotesque visage of a collapsed democracy. Trump and his coterie of billionaires, generals, half-wits, Christian fascists, criminals, racists, and moral deviants play the role of the Snopes clan in some of William Faulkner’s novels. The Snopeses filled the power vacuum of the decayed South and ruthlessly seized control from the degenerated, former slaveholding aristocratic elites. Flem Snopes and his extended family — which includes a killer, a pedophile, a bigamist, an arsonist, a mentally disabled man who copulates with a cow, and a relative who sells tickets to witness the bestiality — are fictional representations of the scum now elevated to the highest level of the federal government. They embody the moral rot unleashed by unfettered capitalism.
The Epstein files, a window into the degeneracy of our ruling class, included not only Trump, but former U.S. president Bill Clinton — who allegedly took a trip to Thailand with Epstein — Prince Andrew, Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, the former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former secretary of the treasury and former president of Harvard University Larry Summers, cognitive psychologist and author Stephen Pinker, Epstein’s lawyer and arch Zionist Alan Dershowitz, billionaire and Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner, the former Barclays banker Jes Staley, former Israel prime minister Ehud Barak, magician David Copperfield, actor Kevin Spacey, former CIA director William Burns, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, former Maine senator George Mitchell and disgraced Hollywood producer and convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein. They all orbited Epstein’s perpetual Bacchanalia.
Anand Giridharadas, who wrote “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World,” notes that the circle of powerful men, and a handful of women who surrounded Epstein, are emblematic of a privileged caste that lack empathy in the suffering and abuse of others, whether that is sexual abuse, including that of children, financial meltdowns they orchestrate, wars they back, addictions and overdose they enable, the monopolies they defend, the inequality they turbocharge, the housing crisis they milk and the intrusive technologies they refuse to protect people against:
People are right to sense that as the emails lay bare, there is a highly private merito-aristocracy at the intersection of government and business, lobbying, philanthropy, start-ups, academia, science, high finance and media, that all too often takes care of its own more than the common good. They are right to resent that there are infinite second chances for members of this group even as so many Americans are deprived of first chances. They are right that their pleas often go unheard, whether they are being evicted, gouged, foreclosed on, A.I.-obsolesced — or, yes, raped.
“The Epstein emails, in my view,” Giridharadas writes, “together sketch a devastating epistolary portrait of how our social order functions, and for whom. Saying that isn’t extreme. The way this elite operates is.”
“If this neoliberal-era power elite remains poorly understood,” he continues, “it may be because it is not just a financial elite or an educated elite, a noblesse-oblige elite, a political elite or a narrative-making elite; it straddles all of these, lucratively and persuaded of its own good intentions.”
“These people are,” Giridharadas reminds us, “on the same team. On air, they might clash. They promote opposite policies. Some in the network profess anguish over what others in the network are doing. But the emails depict a group whose highest commitment is to their own permanence in the class that decides things. When principles conflict with staying in the network, the network wins.”
You can see my interview with Giridharadas here.
The entire system is rotten. It will not reform itself.
The Democratic Party has hit on the novel campaign issue of reducing taxes to win this year’s midterm elections. It will, no doubt, anoint another vapid, issue-less and genocide-supporting presidential nominee. Democratic donors pumped a staggering $1.5 billion into Kamala Harris’s abridged 15-week celebrity-fueled presidential campaign. She became the first Democratic presidential candidate to lose the national popular vote in two decades and be defeated in every battleground state.
The Democratic Party is not a functioning political party. It is a corporate mirage. Its members can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props in choreographed conventions and rallies. Party members have zero influence on party politics.
The more the diminishing power of the empire becomes apparent, evidenced in Trump’s debacle with Iran, the more a confused population retreats into a fantasy world, a world where hard and unpleasant facts do not intrude.
In the final days of a civilization, a population wallows in self-delusional hubris and trumpets false virtues. It looks for scapegoats to explain its failures — Muslims, undocumented workers, Mexicans, African-Americans, feminists, intellectuals, artists and dissidents.
Magical thinking and the myth of American exceptionalism dominate public discourse and are taught in schools. Art and culture are degraded to nationalist kitsch. Science is dismissed, even in the midst of the environmental crisis. Cultural and intellectual disciplines that allow us to see the world from the perspective of the other, that foster empathy, understanding and compassion, are replaced by a grotesque and cruel hypermasculinity and hypermilitarism.
Trump is perfectly tailored for these death throes. He is not a freak or an anomaly. He is the naked visage of our pathological sickness.
Genocide Is Still The Political Test That Matters
May 9, 2026 , Nate Bear, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/genocide-is-still-the-political-test
Yesterday elections were held in parts of England to elect local councillors, and in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved parliaments.
Fearing a challenge from the left, Starmer’s ruling Labour party spent the campaigning period, in coordination with Britain’s legacy media, confecting antisemitism slurs about Green party candidates.
The final effort, on the morning of the elections, was to turn a comment by the Green leader, Zack Polanski, that Israel nor any other country has an inherent right to exist, into one final psychodrama about antisemitism.
It hasn’t worked.
According to early results, the Greens are on course to beat pre-election forecasts for how many seats they’d win. Labour has suffered a heavy defeat.
The (very) dark, although not unsurprising lining to the cloud, is that the far-right Reform party is on course to win a large number of seats. Unsurprising because neither Labour nor the UK’s state-corporate media went after Reform with the rabid, ferocious intensity they went after the Greens.
Why?
Because Reform’s imperialist, hyper-capitalist, bigoted policies aren’t a threat to the establishment.
Reform’s promises to mass deport brown people, build private prison camps, privatise what’s left to privatise of public services, plough money into the war machine, support Israel, and cut taxes for oligarchs, are supported by a right-wing establishment.
What the establishment fears are threats to their power and wealth. What they fear are those who will redistribute wealth, expand the social welfare state and tax millionaires to do it. And with Zionism so deeply ingrained within western institutions of power, they fear anti-Zionists.
As absurd and morally depraved as it is, the establishment fear those who oppose genocide.
Which is why the media and political establishment made ‘antisemitism’ (actually anti-Zionism of course) into a central election issue. But when it was becoming clear it wasn’t working, when it was obvious that genocide, not fake claims of antisemitism, was a more salient issue for people of conscience, Labour MPs took desperately to social media to tell people not to think about Gaza when voting.
Despite this, despite the full weight of the British establishment being arrayed against the Greens, they have fought back, and fought back successfully.
The full results won’t be known until tomorrow, but a significant win saw a Green mayor elected in the London borough of Hackney, the first time the Greens have won a mayoralty election, and the first time the area has had anything other than a Labour mayor since it was formed.
More significant was that two days before her victory, Zoe Garbett had refused to praise the police for the violent arrest of the mentally ill man whose attacks on three people were mischaracterised as antisemitism (and weaponised against the Greens).
The bottom line is that genocide for many people is still, rightly, one of the primary, if not the primary political test. A test of character, ethics, morality and judgement.
The argument that local elections have nothing to do with Gaza appears logical on one level, but is an evasion.
Politics is (or at least should be) about all these things. About values.
And if you can’t oppose genocide, if you can’t stand up to genociders, why should anyone trust you to stand up for justice, or for anything decently progressive?
But for so many in Britain’s Labour party, as for those in the Democratic party in the US, and most liberal parties across the west, it’s worse than that. It’s not just that they don’t oppose genocide, it’s that they provide active support for genocide and a genocidal state.
The Labour party has effectively criminalised support for Palestine. An anti-genocide and community activist in the UK is facing fourteen years in prison having been charged under terrorism laws for social media posts. For tweets! And an NHS GP, Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, has been arrested numerous times for tweets opposing Israel and genocide and is facing years in prison. Meanwhile, another NHS GP, a Jewish Zionist who served in the IDF and claimed he didn’t kill enough babies, has faced no consequences and is still a practicing doctor.
And of course the Labour government provided funding, support and arms to Israel during the genocide, which included daily spy flights feeding back info to the Israeli army, helping fuel their genocidal assault. An assault that continues to this day, with the majority of Gaza now living in tents among rats and disease atop the wasteland of their former homes.
It’s a disgrace. More than a disgrace. Gaza is a moral collapse, and should be at the centre of all of our politics.
Gaza and genocide should very obviously be the test.
If you provide material and rhetorical support for genocide and genociders, if you have revealed genocide and apartheid as one of your core values, you should have no place in decent society, let alone be anywhere close to political power.
Which is why earlier this week I revealed that a Labour councillor in the London borough of Waltham Forest is a genocide supporter who at the height of Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter visited the country on an atrocity propaganda tour.
The final count isn’t in, so whether Lewis has lost the seat, and whether Labour lost the council to the Greens, we don’t yet know.
But what we do know is that the pro-Israel, pro-genocide, Zionist ideology Lewis wears proudly is rife within Labour.
And while Labour’s moral collapse has spurred the rise of the Greens, the overall environment being created in the UK is aiding the rise of the far-right Reform party.
Because in a country where being anti-genocide is lampooned and criminalised, and where being pro-genocide is considered the sensible and protected position, the emergence of fascism is hardly surprising. The rise of fascism is downstream, as they say, of pro-genocide sentiment. Which makes perfect sense, given genocide is the peak expression of fascism.
The UK is the perfect incubator for the emergence of hyper reactionary politics.
But these elections at least show us that Zionism may, slowly but surely, be losing its grip on western politics.
They also demonstrate that the power of legacy media to kill popular leftist politics with lies and slurs is waning, if not yet dead.
Labour and SNP row over submarines at Rosyth Dockyard
THE SNP have been accused of “scaremongering” after warning that Rosyth
has become a bigger target for terrorists and “rogue nations”. Labour
councillor Patrick Browne took aim and said the request for a public
consultation, on the prospect of Trident submarines carrying nuclear
missiles being maintained at the dockyard, was pointless and never going to
be accepted. He said: “The SNP have been scaremongering for months about
the contingent dock proposal for Rosyth. “With their latest comments they
have reached new levels of doom-mongering.”
But SNP councillor Brian
Goodall, who stated that having subs with warheads on the Forth increased
the threat of attack on Rosyth, said that response and the criticism of his
actions showed “just how right wing many in the Labour Party have become”.
The dispute has arisen due the plan for a contingent dock at Rosyth by 2029
to temporarily house the UK’s next generation of nuclear subs until a
permanent home at Faslane on the Clyde is ready in the 2030s.
Dunfermline Press 6th May 2026, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26084331.labour-snp-row-submarines-rosyth-dockyard/
Starmer plan to relax nuclear regulation opposed by Holyrood
“The weakening of environmental protection is a slippery slope opening the way for increased radiation doses to members of the public and the workforce.” – Pete Roche, Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace
UK Government plans which could “weaken” oversight of nuclear safety in Scotland have been rejected by the Scottish Government.
Rob Edwards, May 03 2026, https://www.theferret.scot/starmer-nuclear-regulation-holyrood/
The prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to reform the regulation of nuclear power and weapons to make new developments easier have provoked “serious concerns” within the Scottish Government, according to emails obtained by The Ferret.
The Scottish energy minister, Gillian Martin, wrote to the UK nuclear minister, Lord Vallance, in March, rejecting the suggestion that Scotland could “reap the benefits” of the reforms in helping to build new nuclear reactors.
She also expressed worries that proposals for a “lead regulator” system designed to simplify and speed up the handling of nuclear projects would threaten the independence of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Campaigners warned that the “weakening” of nuclear safety regulation could lead to workers and the public being exposed to more radiation, which can cause cancer. They stressed that Scotland did not need nuclear power and its “toxic legacy”.
The UK Government said that Starmer would “like to see benefits delivered across the UK”. But it promised to work with the Scottish Government “in good faith without presuming an outcome”.
Nuclear power has become one of the most contentious issues in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections on 7 May.
Scottish Labour has repeatedly attacked the Scottish National Party (SNP) for “blocking” the building of new nuclear power stations, which it argued would bring jobs, investment and energy security.
The SNP has maintained the move would drive up electricity prices, create long-lived radioactive waste and undermine renewables, which offer Scotland a better energy future.
In February 2025, Starmer announced plans to “rip up rules to fire up nuclear power”, and set up a nuclear regulatory taskforce to “deliver new projects more quickly”. The Ferret reported in May 2025 that in doing so, he had ignored warnings from his nuclear safety watchdog that regulation was not to blame for delays.
The taskforce, headed by business expert John Fingleton, published its final report in November 2025. It recommended a “radical reset” introducing a “lead regulator” followed by a new regulatory commission to reduce “risk aversion” and “accelerate delivery”.
The report covered both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and suggested that the civil safety watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the Ministry of Defence’s internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, should be merged “to reduce duplication”.
Starmer published his full response to the taskforce in March 2026, accepting all its recommendations. The aim, he said, was to “build a Britain that reclaims its place as a leading nuclear nation”.
His response acknowledged that the taskforce had not made recommendations for the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations. But it promised to “work closely with them to ensure that they too can reap the benefits of these reforms”.
The UK Government was “committed to nuclear across the UK”, the response said. It highlighted government involvement in plans for a new fleet of so-called small modular reactors at Wylfa in Wales.
These statements were highlighted by Scottish minister Martin in an email on 13 March 2026 to UK minister Vallance, released in response to a freedom of information request from The Ferret.
Martin expressed “concerns” that the UK Government was making commitments to take forward the taskforce’s recommendations in Scotland, despite having promised not to. The Scottish Government was yet to be convinced that there was “any merit” in adopting Westminster’s proposals, she said.
“We need to ensure we are reaching our full renewables potential rather than ploughing billions of pounds into a nuclear industry that will leave a long and toxic legacy for future generations.” – Patrick Harvie, Scottish Greens.
Martin pointed out that Scottish ministers had “a longstanding position on new nuclear energy in Scotland and matters of environmental regulation remain devolved to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.”
She also said that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) had been invited to a meeting in London on 26 March 2026 to discuss the UK Government’s plans for a “lead regulator” for nuclear projects.
“We have serious concerns about a lead regulator model and the impact that would have on Sepa’s independence,” Martin warned. She sought clarification “on how the implementation of this will be done in a way which does not impact on areas of devolved competence.”
Another email released to The Ferret is from an unnamed Scottish Government official to the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 12 March. It complained that Starmer’s response to the taskforce “impinges on devolved issues without the agreement of Scottish ministers” and was “problematic”.
“Ministers will have to be robust on this with language and next steps,” the email said.
Other files disclosed that Martin had an online meeting with Vallance to discuss the nuclear regulatory taskforce on 25 February. According to Martin’s pre-meeting briefing from officials, there were “significant issues” with what the taskforce recommendations would mean for Sepa.
Another Scottish Government email to Westminster back in February 2025, when the nuclear regulatory taskforce was announced, said there had been “no engagement with, or agreement from, Scottish ministers”. It suggested that ministers “should not be part” of the taskforce’s work.
“The weakening of environmental protection is a slippery slope opening the way for increased radiation doses to members of the public and the workforce.” – Pete Roche, Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace
Vallance responded to Martin’s email raising concerns on 18 March. Starmer would “like to see benefits delivered across the UK”, he said, but the “recommendations apply only to England”.
The UK Government’s intention was to work with the Scottish Government to “discuss what reforms they may wish to echo or engage with”, he added. “We want to do so in good faith and without presuming an outcome.”
Vallance pointed out that regulatory reform was not just about building new nuclear reactors, but also covered the dismantling of defunct reactors. Major nuclear decommissioning projects, expected to take decades, are under way at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness.
“We do not consider that it implies an intention for the development of new nuclear power in Scotland,” he stated. Vallance also insisted that he “respected” Sepa’s independence.
“None of the measures in the government’s response are intended to, or would, cut across Sepa’s statutory remit or independence of judgment,” he said.
The plan for a “lead regulator” did not give legal powers to that regulator, he maintained. “It simply seeks to facilitate collective, consensus-based decisions.”
The Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace backed the Scottish Government’s concerns. The UK Government seemed to be following president Trump’s lead in relaxing nuclear safety regulation, warned the campaign’s spokesperson, Pete Roche.
PATRICK LAWRENCE: Trump’s Trap, Trump’s Sanity.
The U.S. president has lost the war he started with Iran — or at the very least he has no chance of winning it — but accepting defeat and repairing the damage of the error is simply beyond his reach.
By Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, May 2, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/05/02/patrick-lawrence-trumps-trap-trumps-sanity/
You have to hand it to Sara Jacobs, the California Democrat and the youngest member of the Golden State’s House delegation.
She has an O.K.–plus voting record — at least by Capitol Hill standards — as a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, but this is not why you have to hand it to Sara Jacobs.
You have to hand it to Sara Jacobs because she has just forced the question of Donald Trump’s lapsing sanity into an open debate in the U.S. Congress.
Jacobs accomplished this during the very heated grilling of Pete Hegseth during his testimony in Armed Services hearings on Wednesday.
The defense secretary was a belligerently incoherent mess, but we already knew he was a hopeless Dummkopf, and his appearance on the Hill — his first since the U.S.–Israeli attacks on Iran began Feb. 28 — is merely par for his course.
Jacobs stole the show with her opening question when her time came. Here is a video of her five minutes with the microphone, and here is the query that may find some small place in the annals of the Trump II regime when they are written:
“Mr. Secretary, you are with the president a lot, and it pains me even to have to ask this about our president, but my constituents’ lives are at stake: Do you believe the president is mentally stable enough to be the commander-in-chief?”
Sara Jacobs, you go girl.
Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open
A Nature analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain.
Last August, the DOE terminated six FACA panels that provided advice in areas such as high-energy physics, scientific computing, and biological and environmental research. The DOE has since consolidated these discipline-specific panels into one overarching body called the Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC).
“How good is the advice coming from a committee of people that probably only have passing knowledge of some of the areas?”
By Max Kozlov, Alexandra Witze & Dan Garisto, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01301-5
President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.
Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.
The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.
The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.
A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.
These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.
The February 2025 executive order’s stated purpose was to “minimize Government waste and abuse, reduce inflation, and promote American freedom and innovation”. And some scientists and agency employees said there can be sound reasons to streamline FACA committees by combining some or eliminating ones that no longer serve a purpose. But many researchers say that the scale of the administration’s efforts greatly reduces the amount and quality of advice that the government receives from the scientific community and businesses, as well as organizations that represent people with diseases such as Alzheimer’s
Researchers who spoke to Nature say that by terminating such a large number of scientific advisory committees and not replacing the vast majority of them, the administration is cutting off federal agencies from independent outside expertise. At the same time, it limits the flow of information from the government to the scientific community and the public.
“That two-way street, I think, was invaluable,” says Juan Meza, an applied mathematician at the University of California, Merced, who formerly served on two panels at the NSF and the DOE that have been disbanded. “We could act as ambassadors in both directions,” he says.
The terminations aren’t the only changes to advisory committees that the administration rolled out last year. Nature found that the US government has sharply reduced the number of open FACA meetings — by more than 50% for some agencies — at which the public could observe deliberations and provide input. Some agencies substantially reduced the number of public reports they issued.
And in some other cases — including the prominent example of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that makes recommendations on vaccines — the federal government has drastically changed the composition of the committees, removing people who disagree with its stance and installing ones who agree. Last week, the Trump administration abruptly fired all 22 members of the board that advises and oversees the NSF. As a rationale for the terminations, a White House spokesperson pointed to the 2021 Supreme Court case United States v. Arthrex, Inc., which it says “raised constitutional questions” about the board’s membership and the fact that its members are not confirmed by the Senate. The spokesperson said the White House aims to update the law so that the board can “perform its duties as Congress intended”.
Researchers say that the elimination of panels and other changes seemingly contradict the Trump administration’s promise, outlined in an executive order on ‘gold-standard science’ on 23 May last year, to improve transparency in federally funded science and in science-related decisions taken by federal agencies.
“The fewer of these advisory panels there are, it inherently diminishes the transparency of the entire operation,” says Carrie Wolinetz, who previously administered several advisory panels as the former head of the NIH’s science-policy office.
The White House rebutted these claims. Spokesperson Kush Desai says that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the “federal government’s glut of redundant, taxpayer-funded advisory committees did little to meaningfully inform policymaking for the benefit of the American people”. “The Trump Administration is eliminating the bureaucratic bloat and taking a hands-on approach to ensure that policymaking is driven by Gold Standard Science.”
Biomedicine behind closed doors
The 77 committee terminations at the HHS in 2025 represent a sharp departure from historical levels. Since 1997 — the full extent of publicly available FACA data — annual terminations have exceeded ten only once.
In 2025, the number of open HHS committee meetings also decreased, Nature found. In the ten years before 2025, the average number of committee meetings open to the public was 255. But in 2025, there were just 91 (see ‘Closed science’).
There are many more closed meetings at the HHS in any given year because most of the FACA committees assess research grants, a process that is kept confidential. But in 2025, the ratio of open to closed meetings dropped from an average of over 9% for the previous ten years to 4%, representing a shift towards closed meetings even outside the grant-review process
Among the disbanded groups was one charged in 2023 with making recommendations on research into long COVID and treatment for millions of people with the condition in the United States. The committee was a unique bridge between patients, federal science agencies and policymakers, says Ian Simon, the former head of the HHS Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, which was eliminated amid the government downsizing last year.
The committee was “designed to give patients a significant voice equal to those of researchers and physicians”, Simon says, and its closure is a blow to research. “It is very hard to see how these actions will advance the work that’s needed to understand long COVID and other infectious chronic conditions.”
Other panels terminated by the HHS include the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation, which advised the agency on policies regarding organ donation, procurement and equitable allocation, and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, tasked with reviewing current nutritional science to inform the federal government’s dietary recommendations. The federal government subsequently issued new dietary guidelines in January without the committee’s input, a move that sparked controversy among some nutrition experts who argued that aspects of the revisions bypassed the scientific consensus.
The downsizing of HHS advisory committees is starker than the 2025 termination numbers suggest: some of the FACA committees are also meeting less often than in typical years or have not met at all since Trump took office again.
For example, the NIH leadership has historically relied on the Advisory Committee to the Director and the congressionally mandated Scientific Management Review Board — both of which have not been officially terminated — to navigate major agency reorganizations or funding shifts, says Wolinetz.
But the NIH leadership did not convene either of these panels last year as the agency cut thousands of projects on disfavoured topics and reduced the autonomy of each of its institutes by centralizing peer review and other administrative functions.
Wolinetz says that it’s smart to consider, on a semi-regular basis, whether each committee is still serving its purpose and justifying its taxpayer cost; some panels can become obsolete “vestiges”, she says.
But by terminating so many committees and not consulting others, Wolinetz says the federal government loses a crucial mechanism for ensuring that its decision-making is transparent and subject to scrutiny, including by the public. Advisory committees act as a “locus of public engagement that federal agencies can’t do on their own” about issues the government is grappling with, she says. The actions seem at odds with the ‘radical transparency’ at HHS that is a stated policy goal of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, she says.
She also worries about cases in which the Trump administration has not terminated committees — but instead drastically changed them.
For example, last June, Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of ACIP, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s premier vaccine advisory panel. Claiming that the panel was plagued by conflicts of interest and acted as a “rubber stamp” for the pharmaceutical industry, Kennedy reconstituted the committee with appointees whom, he argued, would bring outsider scrutiny. However, scientists and medical organizations contend that some of the new members have a history of promoting vaccine scepticism, a position long held by Kennedy.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sued the HHS over its changes to ACIP. In March, a federal judge temporary halted the installation of Kennedy’s picks for ACIP, ruling that the selections probably violated federal law requiring that such panels be fairly balanced in terms of expertise and viewpoints. The HHS later revised ACIP’s charter to broaden its scope and focus on the risks of vaccines.
Kennedy also overhauled the HHS’s Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, terminating its existing members and appointing a slate of new ones. The new slate has drawn criticism from some autism researchers who argue that it includes people who are aligned with Kennedy’s disproven claims that autism is a preventable condition linked to vaccines and environmental toxins.
These reconstituted committees were not “formulated in the traditional highly vetted manner” outlined in each panel’s charter, Wolinetz says. Instead, they seem to be “constituted to support particular predetermined points of view” and are being “used to certify policy actions the administration wants to take”, she adds.
Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, told Nature that the agency’s actions were in accordance with a White House order to terminate unnecessary advisory committees, adding that “these previous committees allowed the United States to remain the sickest developed nation despite spending $4.5 trillion annually on health care, driving unsustainable debt and worsening health outcomes.” The HHS will continue to convene committees as necessary, she added.
The HHS did not respond to requests for comment about other issues, such as criticisms of the way the agency changed the composition of the vaccine and autism panels.
Loss at the NSF
The NSF, which is the premier US funder of fundamental research across all areas of science and engineering, also sharply restricted its advice pipeline last year by terminating 14 of its 52 advisory committees. These had provided the agency with advice in areas such as engineering, cybersecurity and geosciences. (All but one of the panels that review grant applications for the NSF remain active.)
Meza served on one of these terminated bodies, the Advisory Committee for Mathematics and Physical Sciences, and was also an NSF programme officer from 2018 until he left in 2022. He says that such panels can provide valuable information to agencies; for example, the committee he served on informed the NSF that the research community had concerns about the lack of support for mid-sized laboratories. Heeding the advice, the NSF established the Mid-scale Research Infrastructure opportunity in 2016 to support what it called “a ‘sweet spot’ for science and engineering that has been challenging to fund through traditional NSF programs”.
The NSF declined to comment on the criticisms about the changes in its advisory committees.
Consolidation at DOE
Last August, the DOE terminated six FACA panels that provided advice in areas such as high-energy physics, scientific computing, and biological and environmental research. The DOE has since consolidated these discipline-specific panels into one overarching body called the Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC).
Meza, who served on the terminated Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, worries about the loss of specific expertise. “How good is the advice coming from a committee of people that probably only have passing knowledge of some of the areas?” he asks.
Persis Drell, chair of the SCAC and a physicist at Stanford University in California, acknowledges the worries researchers have raised. “In a time of turbulent change, I totally understand all of the concerns that are in the community,” she says. Drell adds that she hopes to reassure the scientific community that the SCAC is listening and is serious about helping science at the DOE. “I have two goals: one of them is to ensure that we have a strong basic science foundation and the other is that we are able to make progress on the strategic pillars that the administration has put forward,” she says.
There are many more closed meetings at the HHS in any given year because most of the FACA committees assess research grants, a process that is kept confidential. But in 2025, the ratio of open to closed meetings dropped from an average of over 9% for the previous ten years to 4%, representing a shift towards closed meetings even outside the grant-review process.
Among the disbanded groups was one charged in 2023 with making recommendations on research into long COVID and treatment for millions of people with the condition in the United States. The committee was a unique bridge between patients, federal science agencies and policymakers, says Ian Simon, the former head of the HHS Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, which was eliminated amid the government downsizing last year.
The committee was “designed to give patients a significant voice equal to those of researchers and physicians”, Simon says, and its closure is a blow to research. “It is very hard to see how these actions will advance the work that’s needed to understand long COVID and other infectious chronic conditions.”
Other panels terminated by the HHS include the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation, which advised the agency on policies regarding organ donation, procurement and equitable allocation, and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, tasked with reviewing current nutritional science to inform the federal government’s dietary recommendations. The federal government subsequently issued new dietary guidelines in January without the committee’s input, a move that sparked controversy among some nutrition experts who argued that aspects of the revisions bypassed the scientific consensus.
The downsizing of HHS advisory committees is starker than the 2025 termination numbers suggest: some of the FACA committees are also meeting less often than in typical years or have not met at all since Trump took office again.
For example, the NIH leadership has historically relied on the Advisory Committee to the Director and the congressionally mandated Scientific Management Review Board — both of which have not been officially terminated — to navigate major agency reorganizations or funding shifts, says Wolinetz.
But the NIH leadership did not convene either of these panels last year as the agency cut thousands of projects on disfavoured topics and reduced the autonomy of each of its institutes by centralizing peer review and other administrative functions.
Wolinetz says that it’s smart to consider, on a semi-regular basis, whether each committee is still serving its purpose and justifying its taxpayer cost; some panels can become obsolete “vestiges”, she says.
But by terminating so many committees and not consulting others, Wolinetz says the federal government loses a crucial mechanism for ensuring that its decision-making is transparent and subject to scrutiny, including by the public. Advisory committees act as a “locus of public engagement that federal agencies can’t do on their own” about issues the government is grappling with, she says. The actions seem at odds with the ‘radical transparency’ at HHS that is a stated policy goal of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, she says.
She also worries about cases in which the Trump administration has not terminated committees — but instead drastically changed them.
For example, last June, Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of ACIP, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s premier vaccine advisory panel. Claiming that the panel was plagued by conflicts of interest and acted as a “rubber stamp” for the pharmaceutical industry, Kennedy reconstituted the committee with appointees whom, he argued, would bring outsider scrutiny. However, scientists and medical organizations contend that some of the new members have a history of promoting vaccine scepticism, a position long held by Kennedy.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sued the HHS over its changes to ACIP. In March, a federal judge temporary halted the installation of Kennedy’s picks for ACIP, ruling that the selections probably violated federal law requiring that such panels be fairly balanced in terms of expertise and viewpoints. The HHS later revised ACIP’s charter to broaden its scope and focus on the risks of vaccines.
Kennedy also overhauled the HHS’s Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, terminating its existing members and appointing a slate of new ones. The new slate has drawn criticism from some autism researchers who argue that it includes people who are aligned with Kennedy’s disproven claims that autism is a preventable condition linked to vaccines and environmental toxins.
These reconstituted committees were not “formulated in the traditional highly vetted manner” outlined in each panel’s charter, Wolinetz says. Instead, they seem to be “constituted to support particular predetermined points of view” and are being “used to certify policy actions the administration wants to take”, she adds.
Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, told Nature that the agency’s actions were in accordance with a White House order to terminate unnecessary advisory committees, adding that “these previous committees allowed the United States to remain the sickest developed nation despite spending $4.5 trillion annually on health care, driving unsustainable debt and worsening health outcomes.” The HHS will continue to convene committees as necessary, she added.
The HHS did not respond to requests for comment about other issues, such as criticisms of the way the agency changed the composition of the vaccine and autism panels.
Loss at the NSF
The NSF, which is the premier US funder of fundamental research across all areas of science and engineering, also sharply restricted its advice pipeline last year by terminating 14 of its 52 advisory committees. These had provided the agency with advice in areas such as engineering, cybersecurity and geosciences. (All but one of the panels that review grant applications for the NSF remain active.)
Meza served on one of these terminated bodies, the Advisory Committee for Mathematics and Physical Sciences, and was also an NSF programme officer from 2018 until he left in 2022. He says that such panels can provide valuable information to agencies; for example, the committee he served on informed the NSF that the research community had concerns about the lack of support for mid-sized laboratories. Heeding the advice, the NSF established the Mid-scale Research Infrastructure opportunity in 2016 to support what it called “a ‘sweet spot’ for science and engineering that has been challenging to fund through traditional NSF programs”.
The NSF declined to comment on the criticisms about the changes in its advisory committees.
Consolidation at DOE
Last August, the DOE terminated six FACA panels that provided advice in areas such as high-energy physics, scientific computing, and biological and environmental research. The DOE has since consolidated these discipline-specific panels into one overarching body called the Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC).
Meza, who served on the terminated Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, worries about the loss of specific expertise. “How good is the advice coming from a committee of people that probably only have passing knowledge of some of the areas?” he asks.
Persis Drell, chair of the SCAC and a physicist at Stanford University in California, acknowledges the worries researchers have raised. “In a time of turbulent change, I totally understand all of the concerns that are in the community,” she says. Drell adds that she hopes to reassure the scientific community that the SCAC is listening and is serious about helping science at the DOE. “I have two goals: one of them is to ensure that we have a strong basic science foundation and the other is that we are able to make progress on the strategic pillars that the administration has put forward,” she says.
Rosyth councillor Brian Goodall wants public consultation.
29th April, By Ally McRoberts, Content Editor, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26063183.rosyth-councillor-brian-goodall-wants-public-consultation/
THE UK Government’s refusal to give local residents a say in Trident nuclear submarines coming to Rosyth has been slammed as “disgusting and undemocratic”.
Local SNP councillor Brian Goodall was fuming that a request for a public consultation on the move, which he said would require “radiation shelters” and iodine tablets for people who live in the town, has been sunk.
He said: “The UK Government are effectively saying we won’t ask the Scottish public if we should do this because we know they’d say no.”
Cllr Goodall added: “The MoD confirmed at a previous meeting of the area committee that these nuclear submarines may have nuclear missiles on board when they come into Rosyth.
“This not only presents massive additional health and safety concerns but also makes Rosyth even more of a target for rogue nations and international terrorist groups.”
The next generation of Trident nuclear submarines is the Dreadnought class and a contingent dock is to be in place at Rosyth Dockyard by 2029.
The vessels are to be maintained at Faslane but a temporary home is needed in Fife, and the UK Government have provided £340 million to help “bridge the gap”, as the site on the Clyde won’t be ready until the mid 2030s.
In December the MoD told local councillors they would not reveal if any of the subs that need repairs or maintenance at Rosyth will be carrying nuclear warheads.
In February, at the South and West Fife area committee, Cllr Goodall submitted a successful motion asking the convener to write to the Secretary of State of Defence, requesting that the public are consulted on plans to “potentially bring nuclear weapons” to the dockyard.
Opponents have argued that maintaining nuclear-powered subs and storing nuclear weapons are entirely separate – and that nuclear warheads are not kept onboard when a sub goes in for maintenance.
This week Cllr Goodall said: “The UK Government, through the MoD, have now responded to the request for them to hold a public consultation on their plans to bring nuclear fuelled, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines to Rosyth Dockyard, and their response is as predictable as it is disgusting and undemocratic.”
He said the letter from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, “not only confirms their refusal to consult with local residents on their plans, it also admits that public safety, while a major concern, is not the main priority of the MoD”.
Cllr Goodall went on: “These submarines will still have their nuclear fuel onboard, unlike the decommissioned subs that are already at the dockyard, so there will need to be additional emergency plans put in place, including arrangements for radiation shelters for some local residents and to distribute potassium iodide tablets to the local population.
“The communities around the dockyard should be allowed to have their say on this and the campaign for a public consultation will go on.”
The work on the Dreadnought class would be in addition to the submarine dismantling project at the dockyard, which is cutting up an old nuclear sub, Swiftsure, and removing the radioactive waste left within it.
There are another six decommissioned subs laid up at Rosyth – and 15 at Devonport – and although no decision has been made, Babcock are recruiting for more people to work on the dismantling project.
Cllr Goodall has also expressed concern about the Swiftsure demonstrator scheme, arguing that work to remove the reactor should not go ahead as it’d be cheaper not to do so and there was nowhere safe to store the radioactive waste.
What are Palantir’s 22 points?
Palantir’s 22 points summarize CEO Alex Karp’s vision for the 21st century, emphasizing national defense, AI, societal order, and a pro-Western ideological stance.
Palantir Technologies released a 22-point summary of CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic on April 19, 2026, outlining the company’s ideological and strategic vision for the 21st century. The manifesto addresses the role of technology, national defense, AI, and societal culture, and has sparked significant debate due to its controversial positions.
Palantir’s 22 Points summarize:
1. Moral Duty of Tech Companies: Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the U.S., and tech elites have an obligation to participate in national defense.
2. Hard Power over Soft Power: The manifesto argues that liberal democracies require hard power, particularly software and AI, to maintain security and influence.
3. AI and Military Deterrence: The atomic age is ending, and a new era of AI-based deterrence is beginning. Palantir emphasizes that AI weapons will be built, and the question is who builds them and for what purpose.
4. National Service: The U.S. should consider reinstating universal national service, moving away from an all-volunteer military.
5. Support for Military Personnel: If a U.S. Marine or soldier requires better equipment or software, the country should provide it, reflecting a commitment to those in harm’s way.
6. Governance and Public Life: Public officials should be treated with tolerance, and society should allow room for human complexity to avoid incompetent leadership.
7. Geopolitical Repositioning: The manifesto calls for reversing the postwar demilitarization of Germany and Japan, warning that current pacifism could shift the balance of power in Asia.
8. Cultural Evaluation: Some cultures are described as producing vital advances, while others are labeled regressive or harmful. The manifesto criticizes “vacant and hollow pluralism” and emphasizes the importance of recognizing cultural contributions.
9. Role of Silicon Valley in Crime and Society: Tech companies should actively address violent crime and societal challenges, rather than remaining passive.
Implications and Controversy
The 22 points have been described as a corporate political manifesto, linking Palantir’s software and AI capabilities to national defense, law enforcement, and immigration control. Critics have labeled it “technofascist” or likened it to a supervillain’s vision due to its advocacy for AI weapons, national service, and cultural hierarchies. Supporters argue it reflects a clear moral and strategic stance for tech companies in global security.
Summary
In essence, Palantir’s 22 points articulate a vision where technology, national defense, and societal order are intertwined, emphasizing AI, military readiness, and a pro-Western ideological framework. The manifesto has generated both praise and criticism, highlighting the company’s unique position at the intersection of tech, politics, and global security.
Dangerous and expensive, nuclear power is a dead end for Scotland
I’ve been through every argument that the nuclear industry
makes promoting new nuclear power stations – but scratch the surface and
they just melt through the floor. New nuclear is fundamentally not needed –
numerous studies, including by Stanford University and renowned energy
modellers at LUT show that the UK, and indeed most, if not all, other
countries can meet their energy needs with 100% renewables.
Politicians’ fears about the wind and sun and the rain and the waves and tides being
unable to meet all our needs are misplaced. Renewables, energy storage,
energy efficiency and flexible power with a modern upgraded grid can do it
all – cheaper, quicker, safer and a hell of a lot cleaner, and create many
more thousands of jobs.
The cost of nuclear power is eye-watering. Look at
Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – nearly £100bn to build them both with
massive delays and cost -over-runs. That is enough to install a 5kWh
battery in every one of the 28 million homes in Britain, and leave £44bn
for other things. Combine that with solar and every home becomes a power
station with its own ‘baseload’.
Alternatively, £100bn could fund planned
upgrades to the grid needed to facilitate large and small renewables, twice
over. The Coire Glas pumped hydro storage project in the Highlands could be
built 50 times over. £100bn spent on a nuclear-free transition could be
revolutionary.
What a renewables-based system needs is flexible power,
energy storage and a smart, modern grid. Surplus renewable electricity
could also be used to generate ”green hydrogen” to generate electricity
on calm, dull days. It could also be used to power heavy transport and
industry.
Battery systems, including compressed air and pumped storage
hydro, alongside vehicle-to-grid technology, can all be parts of the
bedrock of energy security and an energy system that would be cooking with
green power 24/7.
Nuclear does nothing to help any of this. Indeed, it is
worse, it directly causes wind and solar plants to be switched off when
green power is plentiful, because nuclear is so inflexible. Not only does
nuclear cost an arm and a leg, it adds cost to the consumer for renewables
We only have to look at the recent history of nuclear power to see how
dangerous and polluting it is. Fukushima remains a slow motion disaster for
Japan as they scramble to deal with millions of gallons of radioactive
water and melted reactor cores. Chernobyl’s 40-year anniversary this week
is another timely reminder, that when things go wrong, they can go very
wrong.
At least when a wind turbine breaks down you don’t need an exclusion
zone for decades and mass public health measures – you just get some
engineers with a crane and some spanners to go fix it.
And despite what the
‘nuke, baby, nuke’ lobby says, there is no solution for the waste yet,
other than to store and guard the most highly radioactive cores for
hundreds of years to cool down out of the way somewhere. That’s the
solution!
The hype about Small Modular Reactors is just that, hype. In
fact, the only two operational SMRs are in China and Russia, and both have
been beset by delays and cost increases. The economies of scale are lost,
and studies have shown that they produce more highly radioactive waste for
the same generating capacity than their slightly larger cousins.
These projects are pure spin, a clever wheeze by industry lobbyists intended to
promote nuclear acceptability – small, click and collect, a kind of
middle-aisle at LIDL feel to it. In the words of energy expert Amory Lovins
on SMRs: “This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift
from selling products to harvesting subsidies.”
The Rolls Royce SMR –
chosen by Great British Energy-Nuclear to be built at Wylfa in North Wales
– is a 470MW reactor, not much smaller than the two Torness reactors, which
are about 600MW each. And then there is the fuel – uranium ore is needed
and we don’t have any, (and the mining of it is handily missed out in
nuclear promotional graphics comparing its land use to renewables, which
also fail to point out that the land around solar arrays and turbines can
still be used for traditional purposes).
Mind you, there is some
recoverable uranium ore on the Orkney mainland – and when it was proposed
to dig it up to use it at Dounreay last century, all hell broke loose and
Orcadians stopped it by popular protest. So we would have to rely on
imports of this global commodity – a market that is dominated by Russia and
associates.
Pete Roche of SCRAM put this well when commenting on a recent
poll indicating only 14% of Scots thought we should focus on uranium
fuelled nuclear reactors for our long term energy security needs:
“Relying on a uranium-fuelled nuclear future is like jumping out of the
oil and gas frying pan and into a nuclear fire – it makes no sense and
Scots seem to get that.”
We should just get on with building a country
that is a renewable energy powerhouse so that future generations can look
back and thank us for choosing a green, clean and sustainable energy route.
Nuclear is NOT a natural partner with renewables, indeed, it is a delaying
tactic, holding back rapid decarbonisation, and adds extra and unnecessary
cost to a renewables-based energy system.
Herald 29th April 2026, https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/26064131.dangerous-expensive-nuclear-power-dead-end-scotland/
Antisemitism and Israel: A challenge to the Australian narrative (Part 1)
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has delivered the 21-page report, ‘Torture and genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’, dated 19 February 2026. Albanese’s team outline the depths of depravity and inhumanity to which the Israeli regime has now sunk in its attempted destruction of the Palestinian people.
By Evan Jones | 27 April 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/antisemitism-and-israel-a-challenge-to-the-australian-narrative,20974
A provocative Royal Commission submission by Dr Evan Jones argues that Australia’s antisemitism debate cannot be separated from Israel, Zionism and their political influence.
Submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion
Part 1
General
This submission can be reduced to one word — Israel.
There you have the answer to your inquiry. Dismantle apartheid Israel and see so-called “antisemitism” disappear overnight, save for a small ineradicable but prosecutable fringe
There is really no reason for this Royal Commission at all, as the problem is self-evident. The Commission will not solve the problem that it was formally established to resolve because its agenda is diversionary. Indeed, it will compound the problem because it will, in all probability (as it is seemingly intended to do), reinforce the influence of the Australian Zionist lobby and thus the ongoing impunity of Israel.
The problem arises from the conflation of two forces.
One: Israel is a nation founded on terrorism and wilfully sustained on deep-seated racism.
We know that nation-states are perennially born of violence, expropriation and repression (Australia as a case study), but Israel is a pronounced variation on a common colonialist theme. Israel was born of naked terrorism against an entire (non-Jewish) indigenous population. It was explicitly created and has been sustained as a racist apartheid state. Its borders have never been determined, envisaging ongoing expansion (lebensraum) — “from the river to the sea” (and beyond).
Palestinian Israelis (descendants of those whom the Zionist terrorist gangs failed to expel) are second-class citizens. Palestinian non-Israelis, under Occupation and under martial law, are denied the most basic human rights. Gaza has been a concentration camp since Sharon supposedly “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005.
The sadistic murder of Gazans since October 2023 is reminiscent of the Germans’ feverish pursuit of Jews and Bolsheviks after Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Israel has long undermined United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) personnel and facilities, which attempt to instil a modicum of humanity into a population long starving from Israeli blockages. Israel endorses carnage by fanatical settlers on West Bank Palestinians, murdering and destroying Palestinian livelihoods at will — for which they enjoy absolute immunity.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) murder children with pleasure. Children are imprisoned indefinitely for throwing stones. Adult prisoners are tortured and murdered. Israel wilfully murders foreign dignitaries (most recently, the Iranian National Security Council chief Ali Larijani, reputed “moderate” and skilled negotiator), which highlights that mass murderer Benjamin Netanyahu has put to words what has been the manifesto of all Israeli leadership: there will never be a Palestinian state (September 2025).
Long-term ethnic cleansing has now turned to genocide, ongoing in defiance of the formal “ceasefire”. Israel destroys essential infrastructure, murders aid workers and journalists — because it can. The journalist murder count is now further “totting up” in southern Lebanon.
Representative — this month (March 2026) marks the 23rd anniversary of the crushing of American Rachel Corrie by an Israeli bulldozer.
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has delivered the 21-page report, ‘Torture and genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’, dated 19 February 2026. Albanese’s team outline the depths of depravity and inhumanity to which the Israeli regime has now sunk in its attempted destruction of the Palestinian people.
Some excerpts:
Torture has always been a central feature of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians. Yet, since October 2023, Israel has employed it on a scale that suggests collective vengeance and destructive intent.
Torture is not confined to cells and interrogation rooms. Through the cumulative impact of mass displacement, siege, denial of aid and food, unrestrained military and settler violence and pervasive surveillance and terror, the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) has become a space of collective punishment, where the destruction of the conditions of life turns genocidal violence into a tool of collective torture with long-term mental and physical consequences for the occupied population.
During its Mandate in Palestine, Britain used torture as one of the counterinsurgency tactics honed in Ireland and later imparted to Zionist militias; such practices, a colonial legacy, were then absorbed into the Israeli security apparatus before and after 1948 as a tool of repression and a preventive measure against Palestinian resistance. From early State-building and through decades of occupation, Israel has practised and condoned coercive violence as a structural component of its apparatus of domination.
An ecosystem of discriminatory legal frameworks and abusive operational practices has metastasized, encompassing Israeli military detention sites and prisons.
Since October 2023, torture in detention has, been used on an unprecedented scale as punitive collective vengeance — a clear feature of genocide. All Palestinians have been treated collectively as “terrorists” and “security threats”.
For her luminous competence, commitment and courage, Albanese was subject to comprehensive oppressive sanctions by the unhinged U.S. Trump Administration in July 2025.
Israel defies all international institutions and laws that proscribe the abuse of state power. Israel’s lobbying and propaganda regime (hasbara) is probably the most extensive of any state in history. Israeli authorities lie about the state’s forces’ actions without remorse.
The Israeli state is a parasite, receiving over US$300 billion (AU$418.7 billion) in aid from U.S. governments since 1950 (a great deal of which flows back to U.S. weapons manufacturers), supplemented by an estimated US$2 billion (AU$2.8 billion) per annum in donations from overseas Jewish “charities”, propped up at the country taxpayers’ expense. In particular, the Jewish National Fund directs funds to obliterating indigenous history in historic Palestine.
In short, the state of Israel is a pariah state, a barbaric regime, an abomination.
Two: All self-described “official” Jewish representative organisations in Australia support and lobby for Israel unreservedly. It is a full-time occupation.
Such “representative” organisations oppose basic human rights for Palestinians under Israeli control. They socialise their children into “a love of Israel” in Jewish “faith” schools. Some of their children are currently enrolled with the IDF to kill Palestinians.
Such organisations lobby Australian governments to support Israel, inhibiting Australian governments from adopting a principled stance towards Israeli criminality. They harass media management and editorial, thus gaining privileged access to and biased coverage from media outlets that the public relies on for supposedly unbiased information and opinion. Their ridiculous defences of Israel (op-eds, letters, buying off journalists) are published with great regularity. Anti-Zionist Australian Jews (vide Louise Adler and so on) and their organisations (the recently formed Jewish Council of Australia) are pilloried, indeed “excommunicated”.
In essence, Australian Jewish “representative” organisations act as a fifth column for a foreign state against Australian national interests – naturally antagonistic to ‘social cohesion’.
One and two in combination.
The Australian Jewish community, by virtue of its “official” representatives, courageous dissenters excepted, is complicit in Israeli genocide. And not just passively but actively. There has been no mea culpa on the part of executives of the key Jewish organisations (such as ECAJ, ZFA, AIJAC). Nobody in the Jewish community that underpins these organisations has sought to overturn the leadership of these key organisations in order to reorient their agenda and priorities.
In short, Israel and the “official” Australian Jewish community are joined at the hip.
It is not unrealistic to infer that the Bondi attack (and multiple incidents simply labelled “antisemitic”) is blowback for Israel’s character and actions and its local support network. The Israeli machine thus puts the security of global Jewry at risk (indeed, its own Jewish population) and doesn’t care.
A Zionist foot soldier is published in The Sydney Morning Herald (22 March), in denial regarding the intimate connection:
‘While David Leser’s article (SMH & Melbourne Age, 20 March [2026]) raises some thought-provoking points, it falls into the trap of attributing antisemitism in Australia to the actions of the Israeli Government. No other national or ethnic group in Australia is held to account for the actions of governments in countries overseas. So why is it considered reasonable for Jews in Australia to be relentlessly discriminated against for the actions of the Netanyahu Government?’
After the Bondi Beach murders, Israeli flags were well represented among the flower collections and mourners. Israel is apparently seen as the mother ship, the source of solace for those suffering, yet it is the ultimate cause of that suffering.
This bizarre anomaly is enhanced when the Zionist Federation of Australia (as befits its name) initiated the idea of inviting the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, to Australia, subsequently legitimised and authorised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and dragging the Governor-General into the sordid process.
Another foot soldier grasps the connection but declines to understand the implications (SMH, 9 January 2026):
‘President Herzog is the legitimate head of state of the internationally recognised democratic state of Israel, rightfully invited to commiserate with Australians after the appalling terrorist atrocity at Bondi, in which predominantly Jewish people were murdered and injured.’
One notes in passing that Israel is not a democracy but an ethnocracy — no amount of affirmation is going to change the lie and the blind spot in the letter writer’s eye. To repeat, Israel is apparently seen as the mother ship, the source of solace for those suffering, yet it is the ultimate cause of that suffering. ‘Rightfully invited’ — really?
Herzog is not a passive head of state but an active participant in Israeli barbarism. Herzog comes to Australia, spends a token moment with victim families and survivors, declines to visit the fire-bombed Orthodox (non-Zionist) Adass Israel synagogue (“for reasons of security”) and spends the bulk of his time playing Israeli politician (‘not the time for a two-state solution’, meets with ASIO and so on).
The implication is ugly. Those murdered at Bondi are being instrumentalised (as with Netanyahu’s treatment of Hamas’ Israeli hostages) in the defence of the state of Israel and its current genocidal agenda. Appalling, no?
Trump to America…’No dough for the Commons. I need it for my criminal wars’
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL. 26 Apr 26, https://theaimn.net/trump-to-america-no-dough-for-the-commons-i-need-it-for-my-criminal-wars/
President Trump has a bizarre way of demonstrating his claim of being the Peace President deserving the Nobel Peace Prize
He spent his first term raining down tens of thousands of bombs on 7 countries posing not a whit of danger to the Homeland. He assassinated a top Iranian general in Baghdad, a monstrous war crime. He withdrew from Obama’s Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) which silenced Iran’s nuclear bomb potential and should have ended the isolation of Iran. Instead, it set the table for Trump’s senseless, now failed war on Iran 8 years later that may crash the world economy if not ended soon. That is madness.
Trump’s obsession with murder and mayhem worldwide has collateral damage to every sensible domestic function of government. Trump has spent 10 years trying to demolish Obama’s Affordable Care Act, a relatively meager improvement to America’s failed health insurance system to the less fortunate. He hasn’t spent dollar one to fix it. He’s ignored our crumbling infrastructure. He’s invested zilch in green energy while the world overheats relentlessly.
But Trump sure has invested in war. His last term one National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) budget in 2021 was a massive $740 billion. His first in term two for 2026 crashed the trillion mark by $42 billion. But mimicking Al Jolson in ‘The Jazz Singer’, Trump proclaimed ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet.’ His 2027 NDAA sours to $1,500,000,000, a 44% increase. Combined with massive tax cuts for the billionaire class, Trump’s profligate military spending has goosed the national debt by $10 billion in his first 6 years.
While silent about spending on the Commons to improve life for all Americans, Trump is ecstatic about his trillion and a half bucks for endless wars. “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care. “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”
To paraphrase first predecessor Obama, ‘Yes you can…yes you must.’
On April 7, 1967, exactly one year before he was gunned down, Rev. Martin Luther King courageously spoke out against the Vietnam War at New York’s Riverside Church, ahead of a massive antiwar rally. In ‘A Time To Break the Silence’, King decried, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Under Donald Trump’s endless, senseless wars…America’s spiritual death is here.
UK nuclear industry in lobbying blitz ahead of Scottish election
THE UK nuclear industry ramped up its lobbying of MSPs ahead of the Holyrood
election, the Sunday National can reveal. An investigation based on the
Scottish Parliament’s lobbying register has revealed that activity has
reached an all-time high, with industry groups, business organisations and
unions increasingly looking to reverse the Scottish Government’s
opposition to the building of new nuclear power stations.
In 2025, 32 MSPs
were lobbied across 14 separate meetings – the highest levels recorded to
date. Compared to the previous year, this was more than three times the
number of MSPs lobbied and almost double the number of distinct meetings.
So far in 2026, 12 MSPs have already been lobbied across seven separate
meetings in the run-up to polling day on May 7. The majority of recent
lobbying has been carried out by the Nuclear Industry Association, which
held a series of meetings with MSPs in Holyrood in 2026.
On March 24, 2026,
representatives from the association met several Labour and Tory MSPs. The
discussions focused on the role of nuclear energy and calls to reverse the
Scottish Government’s opposition to new nuclear development.
At another
meeting on February 20, 2026, the association spoke to Tory MSP Douglas
Ross, raising the “importance” of nuclear power to Scotland’s energy
future. The register also showed involvement from other organisations. On
February 25, 2026, for example, the trade union Prospect met with Net Zero
Secretary Gillian Martin to raise concerns from its members about the
future of the energy sector, including nuclear.
The French state-owned
energy company EDF Energy, which owns and operates Torness nuclear power
station, also lobbied 20 MSPs in 2025. Patrick Harvie from the Scottish
Greens said: “The nuclear industry may be a cash cow for lobbyists, but we
don’t need or want it in Scotland. “We cannot afford to waste time or money
on a costly and unsustainable energy source that will take years to go
online while leaving a toxic legacy for future generations. “If we are to
have a cleaner and greener future, it needs to be based on the vast
renewable resources that we already have in abundance rather than a dated
and dangerous false solution like nuclear.”
The National 26th April 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26052414.uk-nuclear-industry-lobbying-blitz-ahead-scottish-election/
Poll Finds Just 4 Percent of Democrats Support Increasing Military Aid to Israel
By Sharon Zhang, April 25, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/25/poll-finds-just-4-percent-of-democrats-support-increasing-military-aid-to-israel/
Separate polling found this week that Congress’s disapproval ratings have tied their all-time high of 86 percent.
New polling has found that just 4 percent of Democratic voters support increasing military aid to Israel, marking a massive rift with congressional Democrats at a time when other polling has found that disapproval of Congress has tied its all-time high.
The Economist/YouGov polling released this week found that only 11 percent of American adults say that the U.S. should increase military aid to Israel, including only 4 percent of people identifying themselves as Democrats — and only 23 percent of Republicans.
Meanwhile, the polling found that 56 percent of Democrats say the U.S. should decrease military aid to Israel, including 35 percent who say the practice should stop altogether. Just 19 percent said the U.S. should maintain current levels, while 20 percent said they were not sure.
This is a huge departure from the stance of Democratic leaders in Congress, who support military funding for Israel or even want to increase it.
Last week, for instance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) was one of only seven Democrats to vote against the advancement of a measure to block the sale of bulldozers to Israel introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). He was joined by figures like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania), one of Israel’s staunchest advocates in Congress.
Even though Sanders’s resolutions didn’t pass, the vote was seen as a major shift among Democrats, with more Democrats voting to block the sales of certain weapons to Israel than ever before — even if the caucus leader disagreed.
Schumer, a longtime supporter of Israel, said in February that supporting aid to Israel is, in fact, a top priority of his.
“I have many jobs as leader … and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs,” he said at a gathering in New York City. He bragged that, under his leadership, U.S. aid to Israel has grown more “than ever, ever before,” and said: “As long as I’m in the Senate, this program will continue to grow.”
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has also stuck to its positions of backing Israel and its political apparatus in the U.S. Last year, one of its committees rejected a measure for an arms embargo on Israel, while the party also voted down a resolution to limit the influence of dark money on Democratic races, including the spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Meanwhile, approval of Congress — which has done virtually nothing to stop or stem the flow of weapons to Israel, despite public opinion — has hit record lows.
Gallup polling released this week found that the proportion of Americans who disapprove of Congress’s job performance has hit a record high of 86 percent — tying the record set in 2015. Meanwhile, Congress’s approval sits at a lowly 10 percent, just one point above its record low of 9 percent.
1 This Month
4 August – WEBINAR – Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Nuclear Bombs Never Again
Tuesday, Aug. 4 at 5 pm PT / 8 pm ET.
Aug 5, 2026 10:00 AM in Australia/Melbourne
Join the Nuclear Bombs Never Again webinar on August 4th at 5pm Pacific Time / 8pm Eastern Time / 9am Japan Standard Time.
Cross generational voices at the intersection of Japan-Korea-US policy and militarization will share their lived experiences, nuclear impacts in these contexts, anti-war strategies, and actions you can take to advocate for a world with Nuclear Bombs Never Again. This 75-minute event is co-hosted by WILPF US and Korea Peace Now.
22,000+ miles voyaging for nuclear disarmament
and a radiation-free environment https://vfpgoldenruleproject.org/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- July 2026 (251)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
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
nuclear-news 