Report: Nuclear Power Isn’t Viable In Hawaiʻi
Constitutional issues are the basis for the conclusion of the Nuclear Energy Working Group’s final report for the state energy office.
By Lynda Williams, January 6, 2026 , https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/01/nuclear-power-isnt-viable-in-hawaii/
The Hawaiʻi State Energy Office has released the final report of the Nuclear Energy Working Group created by the Legislature under SCR-136. I served on the working group as a representative of 350 Hawaiʻi.
The report concludes that nuclear power is not viable in Hawaiʻi and that the state should not change its laws or constitution to enable it.
The most fundamental obstacle is legal. Hawaiʻi’s Constitution restricts nuclear fission construction, and nuclear power is excluded from the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. These restrictions apply regardless of reactor size, design, fuel type or branding. Small modular reactors and so-called “advanced” reactors are still nuclear fission reactors. Making nuclear power legal in Hawaiʻi would require amending the constitution — a process that requires a two-thirds legislative vote. The working group did not recommend taking this step.
Beyond the law, the technology itself remains unfeasible. No advanced nuclear reactors are operating commercially in the United States, and none are expected to come online in any timeframe relevant to Hawaiʻi’s energy or climate goals. Projects cited by nuclear advocates remain stuck in licensing pipelines, demonstration phases or heavily subsidized pilot programs.
Without commercially operating reactors, reliable cost estimates, construction schedules, or grid-integration analyses do not exist. Nuclear power cannot meaningfully address climate change when it cannot be deployed at scale.
The report also acknowledges that radioactive waste is a decisive and unresolved problem. There is no permanent disposal repository operating anywhere in the United States. Hawaiʻi has no capacity to store or manage spent nuclear fuel, and no federal facility exists to accept it.
The Hawaiʻi Constitution explicitly bars nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities unless approved by a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers. Any nuclear project would therefore require indefinite on-island storage of radioactive material in direct conflict with the constitution, creating ongoing risks related to containment failure and transport. For an isolated island state, this reality alone makes nuclear power unrealistic.
The Hawaiʻi State Energy Office has released the final report of the Nuclear Energy Working Group created by the Legislature under SCR-136. I served on the working group as a representative of 350 Hawaiʻi.
The report concludes that nuclear power is not viable in Hawaiʻi and that the state should not change its laws or constitution to enable it.
The most fundamental obstacle is legal. Hawaiʻi’s Constitution restricts nuclear fission construction, and nuclear power is excluded from the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. These restrictions apply regardless of reactor size, design, fuel type or branding. Small modular reactors and so-called “advanced” reactors are still nuclear fission reactors. Making nuclear power legal in Hawaiʻi would require amending the constitution — a process that requires a two-thirds legislative vote. The working group did not recommend taking this step.
Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.
Beyond the law, the technology itself remains unfeasible. No advanced nuclear reactors are operating commercially in the United States, and none are expected to come online in any timeframe relevant to Hawaiʻi’s energy or climate goals. Projects cited by nuclear advocates remain stuck in licensing pipelines, demonstration phases or heavily subsidized pilot programs.
Without commercially operating reactors, reliable cost estimates, construction schedules, or grid-integration analyses do not exist. Nuclear power cannot meaningfully address climate change when it cannot be deployed at scale.
The report also acknowledges that radioactive waste is a decisive and unresolved problem. There is no permanent disposal repository operating anywhere in the United States. Hawaiʻi has no capacity to store or manage spent nuclear fuel, and no federal facility exists to accept it.
The Hawaiʻi Constitution explicitly bars nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities unless approved by a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers. Any nuclear project would therefore require indefinite on-island storage of radioactive material in direct conflict with the constitution, creating ongoing risks related to containment failure and transport. For an isolated island state, this reality alone makes nuclear power unrealistic.
Emergency preparedness and regulatory capacity further reinforce that conclusion. Hawaiʻi does not have a nuclear regulatory agency, a trained nuclear emergency-response workforce, evacuation-planning capacity, or land suitable for exclusion zones. These are not minor administrative gaps. They reflect the absence of the institutional and physical capacity needed to respond to potentially catastrophic nuclear accidents.
The analysis also places nuclear power in the context of Hawaiʻi’s history in the Pacific, including nuclear weapons testing and long-term harm to island and Indigenous communities. Public trust cannot be assumed, and meaningful public evaluation is impossible without concrete information about reactor designs, fuel cycles, waste handling, and accident scenarios — information that does not exist.
Hawaiʻi is not alone in facing industry efforts to dismantle state-level protections. Over the past decade, several states with laws restricting or prohibiting new nuclear plant construction — including Wisconsin, Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, Connecticut and Illinois — have repealed or weakened those laws to allow so-called advanced nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors, often justified by climate or grid-reliability claims. These rollbacks occurred despite the continued absence of commercially operating advanced reactors, the lack of a permanent nuclear waste repository, and mounting evidence that nuclear power cannot be deployed fast enough to play a meaningful role in addressing climate change.
Now is not the time to weaken Hawaiʻi’s protections against nuclear power. At the federal level, environmental protection and public oversight under the National Environmental Policy Act are being aggressively gutted through executive orders and legislation such as the SPEED Act. These measures are designed to shorten environmental review, eliminate meaningful public participation, restrict judicial oversight, and prevent courts from stopping unlawful projects even when agencies violate the law. As federal safeguards are dismantled, Hawaiʻi’s constitutional and statutory protections against nuclear power become more critical, not less.
The report’s only weak point is its suggestion that the state revisit nuclear power every three to five years. Even under the most optimistic assumptions, advanced nuclear reactors, including SMRs, will not be commercially operating, fully tested, or economically viable within that timeframe. Any nuclear reactor operated in Hawaiʻi would require radioactive waste to remain on island for extended periods to cool before transport, and shifting that waste burden onto other Indigenous lands is not an ethical solution and is inconsistent with the values of aloha ʻāina.
Nuclear power is not viable in Hawaiʻi and never will be; the state should instead focus on renewable energy, storage, efficiency, grid modernization and community-centered planning grounded in reality.
Click here to read the final Nuclear Energy Working Group report. You can read more about the Nuclear Energy Working Group at nuclearfreehawaii.org.
CIA Played Instrumental Role in Maduro Kidnapping.
In reality, while U.S. and British companies were involved in early oil exploration in Venezuela, Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuela, pursuant to the international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
Venezuela’s socialist government, meanwhile, has used oil revenues to adopt social programs for the poor and to develop Venezuela’s economy, accounting for its electoral successes.
The financial elite the CIA serves is now salivating over the prospects of U.S. corporations retaking control of Venezuela’s oil industry
Jeremy Kuzmarov, Substack, Jan 05, 2026
The Trump administration welcomed the New Year by ordering a brazen Special Forces raid into Venezuela that resulted in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was brought to the U.S. to face charges for alleged drug trafficking.
Called Operation Absolute Resolve, the kidnapping had been preceded by months of terrorist activities that included bombing a Venezuelan oil tanker and fishing vessels, resulting in the deaths of more than 100 civilians.
On January 3, The New York Times reported that a CIA source within the Venezuelan government had monitored Maduro’s location in the days and moments before his capture, tipping off the Special Forces about his whereabouts. The CIA also produced the intelligence that led to Maduro’s capture with a fleet of stealth drones.
According to a person familiar with the agency’s work, the CIA was able to recruit informants in Maduro’s inner circle because of the $50 million bounty placed on Maduro’s head.
Donald Trump watched the Operation Absolute Resolve from Mar-O-Lago with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. [Source: yahoo.com]
Beginning in August, the informants worked clandestinely to provide the CIA with information about Maduro’s “pattern of life” and daily movements.
The CIA had Maduro so precisely monitored that even his pets were known to U.S. intelligence agents, according to General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former CIA associate director for military affairs.
In late December, the CIA used an armed drone to conduct a strike on a dock that U.S. officials claimed was being used by a Venezuelan gang to load drugs onto boats.
These actions fulfilled a promise of CIA Director John Ratcliffe in his confirmation hearing that he would lead a more aggressive CIA willing to conduct large-scale covert operations.
Despite claiming to be doing battle with the “deep state,” President Donald Trump authorized the CIA to take more aggressive action last fall and openly authorized CIA operations in Venezuela when the CIA normally operates covertly.
To the Victor Go the Spoils
The symbiotic relationship between the CIA and the financial elite intent on profiting from regime change are epitomized by the CIA’s former Venezuelan station chief, Enrique de la Torre, who advertised immediately after Maduro’s kidnapping that his lobbying firm, Tower Strategy,[1] was supporting clients intent on “rebuilding Venezuela’s energy sector.”
De la Torre published a blog post in late November entitled “The Case for Ending Maduro’s Rule………………
Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez (1998-2013) and then Maduro (2013-present) had in fact been designed to establish Venezuela’s economic sovereignty, empower the poor and Indigenous people, and revitalize the legacy of Latin America’s great liberator, Simón Bolívar.
It was opposed by the U.S. financial elite precisely because it threatened to inspire other Latin American and Third World countries to take control over their own economies and limit the influence of American corporations.
Donald Trump echoed de la Torre in stating after the announcement of Maduro’s capture that “we’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and spend billions of dollars and fix the oil infrastructure—the badly broken oil infrastructure—and start making money for the country.”[2]
Similarly, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo told Fox & Friends last week that, in the event of the overthrow of the Maduro government, “American companies can come in and sell their products — Schlumberger, Halliburton, Chevron — all of our big energy companies can go down to Venezuela and build out an economic capitalist model.”
These latter comments combined with de la Torre’s action make clear the agenda behind Operation Absolute Resolve.
Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, openly proclaimed that Venezuela’s oil belongs to Washington, describing the nationalization of Venezuela’s petroleum industry as “theft.”
According to Miller, “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property. These pillaged assets were then used to fund terrorism and flood our streets with killers, mercenaries and drugs.”
In reality, while U.S. and British companies were involved in early oil exploration in Venezuela, Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuela, pursuant to the international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
The Venezuelan government never actually denied the U.S. access to its oil and, as late as 2017, remained the U.S.’s third-largest foreign supplier of energy.[3]
Venezuela’s socialist government, meanwhile, has used oil revenues to adopt social programs for the poor and to develop Venezuela’s economy, accounting for its electoral successes.
During his presidency from 1998 to 2013, Hugo Chávez cut poverty by 20% and extreme poverty by 30%.
Literacy rates in this period also increased, child malnutrition rates declined dramatically, millions of hectares of state-owned land were distributed, and Venezuela’s UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of national income (GDP), access to education, and child mortality—rose from seventh in the region to fourth.[4]
Maduro was continuing the same trajectory as Chávez, though Venezuela’s economy was undermined during his presidency by declining world oil prices, internal corruption typical of South and North American countries and harsh U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama, Trump I and Biden administrations, whose purpose was to set the groundwork for regime change.[5]
Long War Against Venezuela’s Left
In Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation-Building in the American Century, I detail how the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations set the groundwork for today’s foreign policy by providing significant police aid to help prop up centrist governments in Venezuela that carried out a dirty war against left-wing movements.
The latter sought to nationalize Creole Petroleum Company, Venezuela’s largest oil company, which was largely controlled by the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil empire.
Run under the cover of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the CIA-led Office of Public Safety (OPS) provided riot-control gear and other repressive police instruments and assisted Venezuelan police in compiling blacklists of left-wing “subversives.”
The OPS’s support for hard-line police tactics was apparent in its push to eliminate the requirement that a policeman who killed a suspect be arrested, paving the way for death-squad activity.
Showing where their true priorities rested, OPS police advisers met monthly with security officials of Creole Petroleum and the major foreign mining companies in Venezuela to discuss “insurgency problems.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://jeremykuzmarov.substack.com/p/cia-played-instrumental-role-in-maduro?publication_id=2091638&post_id=183483325&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Rubio Says “Not a War” as Trump Threatens Half the Hemisphere
By Joshua Scheer, SCHEEPOST, 5 Jan 26
Welcome to another day in the empire we might as well call 1984. Marco Rubio, who only yesterday said the U.S. didn’t need congressional approval because the situation in Venezuela is not a war but the capture of a fugitive, adding, to the BBC saying “That’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations. That’s not a war against Venezuela,”
But has the narrative really shifted, or is this just good cop/bad cop—or whatever you want to call the times we are living in? Meanwhile, with President Trump threatening both the incoming president of Venezuela and other left-leaning nations, the United States seems to be lurching toward a space where it resembles a new Rome—a power with seemingly no regard for history.
That was made clear in an interview with The Atlantic yesterday, when asked about Iraq and the current intensifying situation, Trump said: “I didn’t do Iraq. That was Bush. You’ll have to ask Bush that question, because we should have never gone into Iraq. That started the Middle East disaster.”
He threatened Venezuela’s new president Delcy Rodríguez, saying that “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price—probably bigger than Maduro,” adding that “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” He went on to declare, “The country’s gone to hell. It’s a failed country. It’s a totally failed country. It’s a disaster in every way.”
I wonder why a country that has been subjected to coercive actions by the United States and repeated coup attempts can’t get ahead—especially when, even now, its oil is being seized and treated as if it belongs to the U.S. This is a madman being guided by what I would describe as delusional people. The truly frightening part, however, is that they know exactly what they are doing, and that is what makes it so dangerous.
This was a man when campaigning in 2016 spoke saying “stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.” He had campaigned that year in opposition to “nation building,”
Great—who’s paying attention? Which Trump are we seeing this morning—the 2016 isolationist of the highest order? Reports are emerging of a split within the MAGA camp (Make America Great Again, for those unfamiliar), with the New York Times highlighting tensions among the more isolationist figures from Trump’s first administration. “The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the pro-Trump podcaster. “While President Trump makes the case for hemispheric defense, Rubio confuses with talk of removing Hamas and Hezbollah.”
At the same time MAGA darling Candice Owens tweeting “Venezuela has been “liberated” like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq were “liberated”. The CIA has staged another hostile takeover of a country at the behest of a globalist psychopaths. That’s it. That’s what is happening, always, everywhere. Zionists cheer every regime change. There has never been a single regime change that Zionists have not applauded because it means they get to steal land, oil and other resources.”
In the video below, [on original] in a strange twist, right‑wing superstar Tucker Carlson—of all people—defends Venezuela, apparently because it’s the most Christian nation in Latin America. So there you go.
Of course, this MAGA split—and the difference between Trump in 2016 and now—really shows that the true worm in the drink is Marco “the Neocon” today believes that countries shouldn’t have friends—because the threat is global. Why? Because Venezuela is friends with Iran, Russia, and China… oh my. Of course they are—they certainly aren’t ours.
Here’s “little” Marco discussing why he feels the need to protect the oil because “Why does China need their oil? Russia? Iran? This is the West. This is where we live”Adding, for good measure, that after we take our “fair share,” maybe the people of Venezuela would finally get theirs. That’s entirely on brand for the United States—its free‑market ideology and trickle‑down economic system.
Speaking about China’s reaction, they strongly condemned the U.S. seizure of President Maduro, calling it a violation of international law and an overreach of U.S. power, even as some analysts note Beijing may see the situation as a chance to challenge American global dominance and assert its own influence on the world stage.
Many commentators have draw parallels between Washington’s actions in Venezuela and China’s ambitions toward Taiwan, analysts suggest that China is less concerned with the sovereignty of the self-ruled island. Instead, Beijing sees the U.S. move as an opening to question America’s leadership on the world stage. ……………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/05/rubio-says-not-a-war-as-trump-threatens-half-the-hemisphere/
“We’re Going to Run the Country:” Preparing an Illegal Occupation in Venezuela
This press conference wasn’t just about Venezuela. It was about whether empire can say the quiet part out loud again, whether it can openly claim the right to govern other nations and expect the world to shrug.
January 3, 2026, By: Michelle Ellner , https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/03/were-going-to-run-the-country-preparing-an-illegal-occupation-in-venezuela/
I listened to the January 3 press conference with a knot in my stomach. As a Venezuelan American with family, memories, and a living connection to the country being spoken about as if it were a possession, what I heard was very clear. And that clarity was chilling.
The president said, plainly, that the United States would “run the country” until a transition it deems “safe” and “judicious.” He spoke about capturing Venezuela’s head of state, about transporting him on a U.S. military vessel, about administering Venezuela temporarily, and about bringing in U.S. oil companies to rebuild the industry. He dismissed concerns about international reaction with a phrase that should alarm everyone: “They understand this is our hemisphere.”
For Venezuelans, those words echo a long, painful history.
Let’s be clear about the claims made. The president is asserting that the U.S. can detain a sitting foreign president and his spouse under U.S. criminal law. That the U.S. can administer another sovereign country without an international mandate. That Venezuela’s political future can be decided from Washington. That control over oil and “rebuilding” is a legitimate byproduct of intervention. That all of this can happen without congressional authorization and without evidence of imminent threat.
We have heard this language before. In Iraq, the United States promised a limited intervention and a temporary administration, only to impose years of occupation, seize control of critical infrastructure, and leave behind devastation and instability. What was framed as stewardship became domination. Venezuela is now being spoken about in disturbingly similar terms. “Temporary Administration” ended up being a permanent disaster.
Under international law, nothing described in that press conference is legal. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against another state and bars interference in a nation’s political independence. Sanctions designed to coerce political outcomes and cause civilian suffering amount to collective punishment. Declaring the right to “run” another country is the language of occupation, regardless of how many times the word is avoided.
Under U.S. law, the claims are just as disturbing. War powers belong to Congress. There has been no authorization, no declaration, no lawful process that allows an executive to seize a foreign head of state or administer a country. Calling this “law enforcement” does not make it so. Venezuela poses no threat to the United States. It has not attacked the U.S. and has issued no threat that could justify the use of force under U.S. or international law. There is no lawful basis, domestic or international, for what is being asserted.
But beyond law and precedent lies the most important reality: the cost of this aggression is paid by ordinary people in Venezuela. War, sanctions, and military escalation do not fall evenly. They fall hardest on women, children, the elderly, and the poor. They mean shortages of medicine and food, disrupted healthcare systems, rising maternal and infant mortality, and the daily stress of survival in a country forced to live under siege. They also mean preventable deaths, people who die not because of natural disaster or inevitability, but because access to care, electricity, transport, or medicine has been deliberately obstructed. Every escalation compounds existing harm and increases the likelihood of loss of life, civilian deaths that will be written off as collateral, even though they were foreseeable and avoidable.
What makes this even more dangerous is the assumption underlying it all: that Venezuelans will remain passive, compliant, and submissive in the face of humiliation and force. That assumption is wrong. And when it collapses, as it inevitably will, the cost will be measured in unnecessary bloodshed. This is what is erased when a country is discussed as a “transition” or an “administration problem.” Human beings disappear. Lives are reduced to acceptable losses. And the violence that follows is framed as unfortunate rather than the predictable outcome of arrogance and coercion.To hear a U.S. president talk about a country as something to be managed, stabilized, and handed over once it behaves properly, it hurts. It humiliates. And it enrages.
And yes, Venezuela is not politically unified. It isn’t. It never has been. There are deep divisions, about the government, about the economy, about leadership, about the future. There are people who identify as Chavista, people who are fiercely anti-Chavista, people who are exhausted and disengaged, and yes, there are some who are celebrating what they believe might finally bring change.
But political division does not invite invasion.
Latin America has seen this logic before. In Chile, internal political division was used to justify U.S. intervention, framed as a response to “ungovernability,” instability, and threats to regional order, ending not in democracy, but in dictatorship, repression, and decades of trauma.
In fact, many Venezuelans who oppose the government still reject this moment outright. They understand that bombs, sanctions, and “transitions” imposed from abroad do not bring democracy, they destroy the conditions that make it possible.
This moment demands political maturity, not purity tests. You can oppose Maduro and still oppose U.S. aggression. You can want change and still reject foreign control. You can be angry, desperate, or hopeful, and still say no to being governed by another country.
Venezuela is a country where communal councils, worker organizations, neighborhood collectives, and social movements have been forged under pressure. Political education didn’t come from think tanks; it came from survival. Right now, Venezuelans are not hiding. They are closing ranks because they recognize the pattern. They know what it means when foreign leaders start talking about “transitions” and “temporary control.” They know what usually follows. And they are responding the way they always have: by turning fear into collective action.
This press conference wasn’t just about Venezuela. It was about whether empire can say the quiet part out loud again, whether it can openly claim the right to govern other nations and expect the world to shrug.
If this stands, the lesson is brutal and undeniable: sovereignty is conditional, resources are there to be taken by the U.S., and democracy exists only by imperial consent.
As a Venezuelan American, I refuse that lesson.
I refuse the idea that my tax dollars fund the humiliation of my homeland. I refuse the lie that war and coercion are acts of “care” for the Venezuelan people. And I refuse to stay silent while a country I love is spoken about as raw material for U.S. interests, not a society of human beings deserving respect.
Venezuela’s future is not for U.S. officials, corporate boards, or any president who believes the hemisphere is his to command. It belongs to Venezuelans.
Following U.S. coup in Venezuela, the CIA’s former station chief is advertising support for corporate exploitation of the country’s oil
The CIA’s former Venezuela chief of station, Enrique de la Torre, advertised that his lobbying firm, Tower Strategy, is supporting clients “rebuilding the country’s energy sector.”
Jack Poulson, Jan 04, 2026, https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/following-us-coup-in-venezuela-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1269175&post_id=183365776&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=8cf96&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and spend billions of dollars and fix the oil infrastructure — the badly broken oil infrastructure — and start making money for the country,” U.S. President Donald Trump declared on Saturday morning. The remarks followed a raid by the U.S. military’s elite commando team, Delta Force, which kidnapped Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia, using what Trump described as cover of darkness implied to have been provided by a U.S. cyberattack.
“It was dark, the lights of Caracas were largely turned off, due to a certain expertise we have,” Trump stated, before adding that, “It was dark, and it was deadly.” A series of photos from the “deadly” raid was quickly published by the wire service Reuters.
A special operations source was summarized by the investigative journalism outlet The High Side as stating that a “local source network … helped install jammers and other technical equipment on the ground, including beacons for airstrikes.” “The operational preparation of the battlespace was conducted by Task Force Orange, which throughout its history has been known by a host of cover names, including the U.S. Army Office of Military Support, Titan Zeus and the Intelligence Support Activity,” reported The High Side.
“We’re ready to stage a much larger second attack,” continued the U.S. president, before adding that, “we have a much bigger wave that we probably won’t have to do.”
A recent CIA chief of station in Venezuela, Enrique de la Torre, quickly took to the professional networking site LinkedIn to claim that his newly formed lobbying firm with former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela James B. Story, Tower Strategy, was “already working with clients focused on democratic recovery, restored U.S. engagement, and the serious work of rebuilding the country’s energy sector.”
Tower Strategy has so-far publicly disclosed representing four companies: the controversial treasure-hunting company Odyssey Marine Exploration, the Singapore-based and Tether-affiliated cryptocurrency company Bitdeer, the solar supply chain company T1 Energy, and the international solar power export company UGT Renewables / Sun Africa.
De la Torre spent roughly the first ten months of 2025 working for the lobbying and foreign influence firm Continental Strategy, which is run by Carlos Trujillo, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States with close ties to U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio. The former CIA station chief’s partner at Tower Strategy, Ambassador Story, further launched the consulting firm Global Frontier Advisors alongside former Pentagon artificial intelligence chief Michael S. Groen in late July, with partner David Kol noted in the press release to be the CEO of Zodiac Gold Inc.
Former CIA director Michael R. Pompeo similarly told the media platform Fox & Friends on Monday that the U.S. Government’s seizures of Venezuela-linked oil tankers was the “right course of action” and that, in the event of the overthrow of the Maduro government, “American companies can come in and sell their products — Schlumberger, Halliburton, Chevron — all of our big energy companies can go down to Venezuela and build out an economic capitalist model.”
Trump further declared in his Saturday press conference that, “We’re going to run the country [Venezuela] until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” further stating that the members of his administration standing behind him in the press conference would be designated to lead the country in the short term. Venezuelan president Delcy Rodriguez, who was today sworn in as the new leader of the country following the U.S. kidnapping of President Maduro, was claimed by Trump to have effectively agreed to concede to U.S. demands in a recent conversation with U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio.
Trump described his government as having “superseded” the longstanding U.S. policy of dominating the politics of the Western Hemisphere, known as the Monroe Doctrine, by “a lot.” “They now call it the Donroe Doctrine,” Trump stated, in reference to the now-popular phrase.
The U.S. Government’s claim to legal legitimacy of the kidnapping and broader coup have centered upon allegations that Maduro and his administration have been engaged in large-scale cocaine trafficking meant to destabilize the United States. A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) jacket was partially visible in the background of a photograph published by Trump on his social media platform Truth Social on Saturday, showing a blindfolded Maduro aboard the U.S. warship Iwo Jima.
Several U.S. State Department-backed media and lobbying organizations helped amplify the impact of unilateral U.S. sanctions over the past several years, effectively providing a form of international legal top cover for the Trump administration’s coup this morning. The most notable were perhaps Transparency International through its Venezuelan branch, the National Endowment for Democracy-backed media platform Connectas, and the CIA-affiliated think-tank Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS).
Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva condemned the unilateral U.S. kidnapping of Venezuela’s leader as having crossed “an unacceptable line,” while UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the U.S. raid as setting “a dangerous precedent.”
Jan 04, 2026
Microsoft wants to resurrect Three Mile Island. It will never happen.
regulatory barriers are just the start. Nuclear reactors can’t be simply switched back on like a light bulb. They’re more like a car left undriven in a garage for too long with old oil, putrid gasoline, rat-chewed wires and a rusty frame — except that nuclear plants are infinitely more complicated than any car.
The Hill. by Neil Chatterjee, opinion contributor – 01/02/26
Microsoft and Constellation Energy have spent the last year trying to resurrect the Three Mile Island Nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The plant shut down in 2019 under economic pressure, after a separate part of the facility was decommissioned following a partial meltdown in 1979.
The effort is laudable, especially in light of Microsoft’s rapidly rising demand for [?] clean energy to fuel its artificial intelligence data centers. Unfortunately, it will never work. A fully shut-down nuclear plant has never been restarted in America for good reason: There are too many regulatory, material and logistical hurdles to overcome.
So far, Constellation Energy has painted a rosy picture. It originally stated the plant would be back online by 2028. Then, in early 2025, it revised its estimated opening date to 2027 following various inspections and the restoration of the plant’s water systems.
But traditional nuclear projects have a long history of going over budget and past schedule. A big factor is that the U.S. regulatory environment is not friendly to traditional nuclear power.
As the former head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the first Trump administration, I have seen firsthand how red tape can choke even the best-intentioned projects under goodwill regulators. Reactors that were permanently shut down must go through an extensive regulatory review process and request special exemptions for both their operations and use of radioactive fuel.
Constellation Energy and Microsoft have some solace in that the Department of Energy offered their project public support. But the Department of Energy isn’t the only player in town.
To ensure safety, Three Mile Island will also have to pass rigorous rounds of inspections, receive environmental approval and get the green light from the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FERC and other state and local offices.
Even under a pro-business, pro-energy, regulation-slashing Trump administration, this is quite a gauntlet — especially because pro-nuclear government officials may nevertheless be hemmed in by existing laws and review processes outside of their control.
If regulatory barriers were the only holdup, perhaps there would be reasons to be more bullish on Three Mile Island. After all, President Trump has offered full support to nuclear energy and is committed to winning the energy-intensive AI race against China, red tape or not.
But regulatory barriers are just the start. Nuclear reactors can’t be simply switched back on like a light bulb. They’re more like a car left undriven in a garage for too long with old oil, putrid gasoline, rat-chewed wires and a rusty frame — except that nuclear plants are infinitely more complicated than any car.
At Three Mile Island, the reactor vessel could be brittle and fatigued. The core rods may need to be refurbished, the steam generators might have corroded, the turbines may break after not being rotated for years. And we know the cooling tower was partially removed as a fire hazard.
Replacing and restoring this equipment and more will not come cheaply. Constellation Energy originally projected it would take $1.6 billion to bring the facility back onto the grid, but that was before it fully cracked open the hood.
Then there are the basic economic realities of traditional reactors. Three Mile Island, Indian Point, Crystal River and others were shut down not because they were unsafe or failed to produce energy, but because maintenance was costly and they couldn’t keep up with the low price of other energy sources like natural gas.
As energy demand rises, those costs may become more comparable. But restarting Three Mile Island is still an expensive bet that will take years or decades of the right economic conditions to pay off.
And all of this does not even count the difficulties with accessing or creating a supply chain for nuclear fuel and long-unused components, integrating with the local electricity grid, hiring and training a highly competent workforce and overcoming the (unjustified) cultural stigma against a power plant that shares a name with the only major nuclear meltdown in American history…………………………… https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5667831-microsoft-constellation-nuclear-challenges/
Russia-US nuclear pact set to end in 2026 and we won’t see another
After the New START treaty expires in February, there will be no cap on the number of US and Russian nuclear weapons – but some are sceptical about whether the deal actually made the world safer
By Matthew Sparkes, New Scientist, 30 December 2025
In February 2026, for the first time in decades, there will be no active treaty limiting the size of the US and Russian nuclear arsenals. Experts are divided on whether the New START treaty genuinely made the world safer, but there is far more agreement on one thing: a replacement is unlikely.
The US and Russia first agreed to place limits on their nuclear weapons and allow each to inspect the other’s stockpiles with the START I treaty in 1991, and this was succeeded by New START in 2011. In 2021, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin agreed to extend the treaty by five years. It is now due to expire on 5 February and talks on a replacement have faltered………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.newscientist.com/article/2504635-russia-us-nuclear-pact-set-to-end-in-2026-and-we-wont-see-another/
DePetris’ Trump foreign policy accomplishments more dubious than prideful
Walt Zlotow… West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 3 Jan 26
In his Chicago Tribune foreign policy commentary ‘The foreign policy moves Donald Trump got right this year’, Daniel DePetris largely ignores reality.
He praises Trump for brokering the November 10 ceasefire agreement in Gaza without mentioning that for nearly 10 months Trump provided Israel with billions in weapons to complete the obliteration of Gaza’s 139 square miles. With over 100,000 dead and the remaining 2,200,000 Palestinians facing death from forced starvation and withdrawal of medicine, the world rightly calls Israeli US policy a genocide. So yes, DePetris is correct to call Trump’s slowing down Israel’s ferocious genocide thru ceasefire “preferable” to its continuance. But pretending Trump is simply a neutral peace broker of the US enabled Israeli genocide is deplorable.
DePetris is also correct to praise Trump for seeking to broker an end to the Russo Ukraine war. But in claiming the biggest obstacle with Trump’s diplomacy is Trump’s “wild inconsistency”, DePetris misses a far greater obstacle: Russia and Ukraine’s diametrically opposed and irreconcilable goals to end the war. That makes Trump’s sincere efforts at peace daunting, if not impossible. At this stage, it is nowhere near an accomplishment.
DePetris whiffs on his third claimed Trump foreign policy accomplishment, the overthrow of the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, replaced by former al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmad al-Sharaa.
DePetris, like Trump, rehabilitates a US enemy dedicated to killing Americans in Iraq in his previous life. Why? Because al-Sharaa deposed the hated Assad whom the US sought to oust since the 2011 Syrian civil war to remove one of Israel’s regional enemies. This had nothing to do with uplifting the Syrian people. Indeed, the billions in weapons America poured into the Syrian civil war was responsible for much of the hundreds of thousands of deaths DePetris attributes solely to Assad. With the secular Assad gone, Syria’s Christians, Alawites, and others not part of al Sharaa’s extremist religious base are suffering horribly. Their fate was never a concern of Trump and his champion DePetris who view the destabilization of Syria as a US win for expanded Israeli Middle East hegemony.
Chicago Tribune’s readers deserve more than a sanitized view of Trump’s machinations in Gaza, Ukraine and Syria. They deserve the truth.
WE’LL CONTROL THE OIL! — TRUMP BOASTS AFTER SECRET RAID AS WASHINGTON POST CHEERS ARREST.
“we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year. There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”
January 3, 2026 , By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/03/well-control-the-oil-trump-boasts-after-secret-raid-as-washington-post-cheers-arrest/
In a reprehensible editorial, The Washington Post praised the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, calling the U.S.-led operation as “Justice in Venezuela” saying it was “one of the boldest moves by a president in recent years” and a tactical success. According to reports, the mission in Caracas involved airstrikes followed by a Delta Force operation that apprehended Maduro and his wife, who have been extradited to the U.S. to face charges including narcoterrorism, weapons violations, and drug crimes—all with no American casualties. The editorial argued that removing Maduro would weaken the influence of authoritarian allies such as Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran in the region and send a strong message to other dictators.
The piece also noted that the next challenge is ensuring stability and a democratic transition in Venezuela, highlighting opposition leader María Corina Machado and her “Freedom Manifesto” as a potential path forward. At the same time, the editorial acknowledged the uncertainty of outcomes, warning that a power vacuum or a new authoritarian leader could emerge if a clear transition plan is not implemented.
Machado was quoted as saying the opposition is “prepared to take power,” though no specifics regarding a transition plan have been released.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Machado, who has been in hiding since Maduro’s disputed reelection in July 2024, said in a post on X that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, whom the opposition says won the vote, “must immediately assume his constitutional mandate” as president. and that “Venezuelans, the hour of freedom has arrived.”
Not everyone welcomed the operation. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the attack and said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had “repeatedly denied to Congress” that the administration intended to “force regime change in Venezuela.” Himes added, “Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos.”
Others highlight the split between the GOP and the Democrats.
“Nicolás Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug‑trafficking operation,” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton, defending the mission and saying he commends Trump and U.S. forces.
The split was evident at first with Utah Senator Mike Lee. Notably, the Republican initially seemed critical of the action being taken without congressional authorization.
“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.
However, Lee later followed up, saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action. Because the administration is framing this not as a war but as a police action to arrest a fugitive, Lee said he believes it would be permissible under the president’s current authority. I wonder we have heard that term police action before?
From the Democratic side, the sentiment was nearly unanimous.
“Without authorization from Congress … Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern wrote on social media, highlighting a lack of legislative approval.
“Second unjustified war in my life time,” Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, on X shortly after 3 a.m. Saturday. “This war is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year. There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”
Sen Andy Kim writing on X: “Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth looked every Senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn’t about regime change. I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress.”
Others Democrats, including Rep. Yvette Clarke and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, called the operation “unconstitutional,” “un‑American,” and a “direct threat to our democracy,” arguing that the administration bypassed Congress.
The president spoke about a great many things, including taking over the country, which again would fall in line with the concept of the historic police action that took place in Southeast Asia. As Gallego said, this may be the second illegal war in our lifetime; it is certainly not the only two that the United States has been involved in.
As Trump said, he’s not afraid of putting boots on the ground.
Trump had the gall to say today that his administration will make the people of Venezuela “rich, independent, and safe.” But he doesn’t mean most people—the poor and working-class citizens whom the socialist government represents. He means the oligarchs: the wealthy and powerful few. Trump is clearly the leader of the oligarchs, so this isn’t surprising—yet it is still deeply sickening.
Of course, this feels a lot like George W. Bush’s horrific war in Iraq, which was more about the pride of a leader whose father couldn’t topple Saddam Hussein. In this case, it seems driven by Rubio’s long-standing fantasy of a life in Cuba, surrounded by the wealth of oligarchs—something his family could have aspired to. Now, he is helping push a new Monroe Doctrine and supporting the rise of right-wing forces in Latin America.
Regarding oil, many in 2003 foolishly claimed that oil profits would cover the costs of the Iraq War. In the lead-up to the invasion, U.S. officials expressed strong confidence that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction, largely through its vast oil reserves and other national assets. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld emphasized that American taxpayers would not be the primary source of funding, pointing instead to Iraq’s own resources and potential international contributions. Similarly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress that Iraq could fund its recovery “relatively soon,” citing the wealth of the Iraqi people. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council official, dismissed the idea of massive U.S. expenditures as “unimaginable,” suggesting that even tens of billions of dollars in spending would be “highly unlikely.” These statements collectively painted a picture of Iraq as a “very wealthy country,” with officials expressing little doubt that it could largely finance the reconstruction of its own nation.
On the parallels between Iraq and Venezuela, I’ll leave this to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as quoted in Ron Suskind’s book about Paul O’Neill. Advocating “going after Saddam” during the January 30 meeting, Rumsfeld said, according to O’Neill:
“Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about”
Exactly, Donald—the empire was always the goal. The idea of democracy was just a shield to make us seem less evil than those who came before, especially our original colonial parent the English. But now the veil is off: we are brazenly invading countries and claiming what belongs to them as our own. I’ve written before—may the empire end, hopefully peacefully, though most likely it will not.
However, in another display of both war talk and regime change, the president said he’s not afraid of boots on the ground, since they have already been there. So if the people of Venezuela resist, as they have promised, and your justification for a fugitive is now gone, what will you do? Ironically, this is from The Washington Post, but as a member of Congress once told me, you need to read the paper daily to know what the CIA and the policy establishment think.
About oil, the war, and the current situation. As of now Chevron is currently the only global oil company with access to Venezuela’s vast reserves.
As Bloomberg’s Kevin Crowley noted last month, the company occupies a unique position: it has faced criticism in the U.S. for continuing to operate in the country, while some members of Venezuela’s ruling party view it as a symbol of American imperialism. Chevron has been able to maintain its presence thanks to special licenses that allow it to operate despite U.S. sanctions.
Venezuela once played a central role in global oil markets, supplying the U.S. with large volumes of crude and standing as an oil powerhouse. Today, however, it accounts for less than 1% of global oil supplies—less than fellow OPEC member Libya.
However, don’t expect a rapid recovery in Venezuelan oil production—whether or not the U.S. is heavily involved. History shows that violent regime changes rarely encourage inward investment. Fourteen years after Muammar Qaddafi’s removal, Libya’s oil production remains about 25% below its pre-war level. In Iraq, where the U.S. had a major administrative role after toppling Saddam Hussein, it took 12 years for oil production to return to pre-war levels—and much of the new production came from Chinese companies rather than U.S. firms.
Trump said today that “we will control those Venezuelan oil fields.” Let’s see, sir. It’s not nearly as easy as you think. Based on the history of wars that involve oil.
More notes from the presidents speech
Rubio discussed today why Congress was not informed, claiming that this was not a war but rather a Justice Department arrest, and that the individual in question is a fugitive of American justice.
He described the situation as a “president of action,” saying, “I don’t know how we haven’t figured this out. Marco, we have figured it out. The president is a man of action, and he—and this neocon-aligned regime—need to go. Sadly with The Washington Post pushing its editorial agenda, alternative media is essential, because the mainstream press is controlled by you and your oligarch allies. Of course so is social media and almost everything else, I would hope—but not hold my breath—that the same Democrats who are criticizing today’s events would also ensure we have a free and fair media. Yet many in this Congress supported President Biden when he pushed for the forced sale of TikTok to Larry Ellison, so…
Keep hope alive
CIA, with Trump’s blessing, is using Ukrainians to sabotage Russia’s energy infrastructure and oil tankers – NYT
Iona Cleave, The telegraph, Fri, 02 Jan 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/503791-CIA-with-Trumps-blessing-is-using-Ukrainians-to-sabotage-Russias-energy-infrastructure-and-oil-tankers-NYT
Attacks on oil refineries have cost Moscow $75m a day, according to US intelligence
The CIA secretly taught Ukraine how to target crucial components of Russia’s oil refining infrastructure and its sanction-busting shadow fleet, according to officials.
Despite Washington pulling back its support for Kyiv’s war effort under the Trump administration, it has emerged that US intelligence and military officers continued to find new ways to stifle Vladimir Putin’s war machine.
Since June, the CIA, with Donald Trump’s blessing, has been covertly providing specific intelligence to bolster Ukraine’s aerial offensive against oil refineries inside Russia, according to the officials.
The move came amid Mr Trump’s growing frustration with Putin’s unwillingness to negotiate while Russian forces accelerated attacks on Ukrainian cities.
The US has long shared intelligence with Kyiv that helps with attacks on Russian military targets in occupied parts of Ukraine and provides advanced warning of incoming Russian missiles and drones.
Under persuasion by Ukraine sceptics in the White House, led by JD Vance, the vice-president, and his allies, Mr Trump froze military aid in March and intelligence sharing was suspended as a result.
However, The New York Times, citing officials, said the CIA heavily lobbied for the agency to keep sharing intelligence.
Before summer, the impact of the strikes on Russia’s energy infrastructure – which often hit storage depots or structures easily repaired – had been relatively minimal.
Under a new plan, crafted by the CIA and US military, the campaign was concentrated exclusively on oil refineries, targeting a newly found Achilles heel.
A CIA expert had identified a coupler device that is so difficult to replace that it could lead to a facility remaining shut for weeks.
The strikes became so successful that Russian oil refining was reduced by as much as a fifth on certain days, cutting exports and leading to domestic fuel shortages.
It was costing its economy an estimated $75m (£55m) a day, according to US intelligence.
Comment: That’s certainly one way to make your otherwise useless sanctions work: just start blowing up your opponent’s oil business! Uniquely American…
In response, Mr Trump praised the strikes for the leverage and deniability they gave him as Putin continued to stonewall negotiations, according to the sources.
It was first reported in October that Washington was closely involved in the planning of such strikes, but it wasn’t known that the CIA was responsible for the new focus of the campaign and identifying specific weaknesses in its energy infrastructure.
In late November, Ukraine also began a maritime campaign against Moscow’s shadow fleet, a clandestine network of hundreds of vessels carrying sanctioned oil to keep the Russian economy afloat.
Comment: At least we now know how ‘Ukraine’ struck a Russian oil tanker off West Africa.
Kyiv was using its explosive-laden long-range naval drones to blow holes in the ships, opening a new front in the war to cut off Russia’s largest source of funding and strengthen its negotiating position at US-led peace talks.
According to US and Ukrainian officials, the CIA was authorised to assist Kyiv’s military in these efforts, despite the risk of angering Putin’s regime.
It is not clear exactly when such help was approved by the Trump administration.
The New York Times report, citing hundreds of national security officials, military and intelligence officers and US, Ukrainian and European diplomats, charts the unwinding of the US-Ukrainian alliance over the past year.
The officials argued that as Mr Trump attempted to broker peace, factions in the White House and Pentagon pushed the president and his aides to make inconsistent, and at times, erratic decisions that damaged Kyiv’s war effort.
This included how the newly renamed Department of War, led by Pete Hegseth, repeatedly made unannounced decisions to withhold vital munitions from Ukraine that had already been given under the Biden administration, costing lives at the front.
A critical error, according to the officials and diplomats, was Mr Trump overestimating his rapport with Putin and ability to get him to meaningfully engage in negotiations.
Despite repeatedly touting his ability to secure an end to the war in “24 hours”, the Republican was forced to admit on Sunday his lack of a breakthrough after a year of on-off negotiations.
As he hosted Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago, he was forced to admit “it is not a one-day process deal. This is very complicated stuff”.
The officials also revealed that Mr Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart bonded over a love of Ukrainian women.
Following their disastrous meeting in February, Mr Zelensky returned six months later to win back Mr Trump’s support.
Sitting in the Oval Office, Mr Trump said “Ukrainian women are beautiful”, to which Mr Zelensky replied, “I know, I married one.”
In an odd sequence of events, Mr Trump rang up an old friend who had married a former Miss Ukraine who was then put on the phone to speak to Mr Zelensky.
“It humanised Zelensky with Trump,” an official who was there told the New York Times. “You could feel the room change.” The meeting, in which the Ukrainian leader was on the charm offensive, proved crucial for their relationship moving forward.
The officials also revealed that Mr Trump had approved a back channel being opened with Moscow before his inauguration, despite the fact that doing so before his first term prompted claims of conspiracy and became part of a long-running Russian investigation.
The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, reportedly introduced Mr Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff to Kirill Dmitriev, who would later emerge as the lead negotiator in peace talks with the US.
That move reportedly came after Joe Biden rejected a request for a secret letter granting Mr Trump and his team permission to begin talks during the transition, for fear the incoming president would sell out Ukraine in a deal.
Comment: So, apparently ‘an edge on the oil markets’ is more important to ‘the peacemaker’ than actual peace.
WHAT CHAOS WILL TRUMP UNLEASH IN 2026?
The evidence of 2025 suggests a president who is alternately reckless and bored
Seymour Hersh, Jan 03, 2026
One of my favorite anecdotes occurred sometime after 9/11 when Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain, joined in with America’s declaration of war against terrorism. The brilliant playwright Harold Pinter, who would be a bitter and prolific critic of the ensuing war, was invited to respond before the House of Commons. He began his talk with a tale from British history during a wave of terror in Ireland.
“There’s an old story about Oliver Cromwell. After he had taken the town of Drogheda, the citizens were brought to the main square. Cromwell announced to his lieutenants: ‘Right! Kill all the women and rape all the men.’ One of his aides said: ‘Excuse me, General. Isn’t it the other way around?’ A voice from the crowd called out: ‘Mr. Cromwell knows what he is doing!’”
In Pinter’s telling, the voice of support from the crowd was Blair’s. Today it could and would come from the lips of Vance, Bondi, Hegseth, or Noem. Never has a modern American president been surrounded by such self-important sycophants and a Republican-led Congress with little gumption. Trump’s lack of interest in nonmilitary briefing papers and his obsession with social and political gossip has moved from information known by a few to standard operating procedure………………….(Subscribers only) https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-chaos-will-trump-unleash-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1377040&post_id=183249150&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Venezuelan leader Maduro lands in New York after capture by US troops – live
Donald Trump says the US will ‘run’ Venezuela and put Maduro on trial after audacious military operation in Caracas
- Full report: Trump says US will ‘run’ Venezuela
- Explained: Is there legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?
- Reaction: Global outcry after US strikes Venezuela
4 Jan 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/03/caracas-explosions-venezuela-maduro-latest-news-updates-live?page=with:block-69599f418f085ed25e9e3394
Nicolás Maduro ‘has arrived in New York’
A plane believed to be carrying Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, has landed near Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York.
Maduro is expected to be taken by helicopter to the city where he will be processed and transported to the Metropolitan Detention Center prison, officials told NBC News.
They added the Venezuela president is set to appear in court by Monday evening.
The New York Times has reported that at least 40 people, including civilians and soldiers, were killed in Saturday’s US attack on Venezuela. The estimate comes from a senior Venezuelan official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The victims reportedly include a woman called Rosa González, who was killed when her three-story apartment complex was hit by a strike. Another resident was reportedly severely injured.
US oil giants have so far remained silent on Donald Trump’s claim that they are primed to spend “billions and billions of dollars” rebuilding the Venezuelan oil industry following the ouster of Nicolás Maduro.
Chevron, the only US oil company still operating in Venezuela, committed only to following “relevant laws and regulations” after the US president suggested American energy multinationals would be central to his plans for the country.
Venezuela’s vast oil reserves – reputedly the world’s largest – will be modernized and exploited, Trump claimed in interviews and a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate. US oil firms will invest heavily to reconstruct “rotted” infrastructure, ramp up production and sell “large amounts … to other countries”, he told reporters, adding: “We’re in the oil business.”
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies – the biggest anywhere in the world – go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure and start making money for the country,” the president said. The firms would be “reimbursed”, he added, without providing more detail.
ExxonMobil, the biggest US oil company, and ConocoPhillips, another major player, did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for Chevron said: “Chevron remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”
In response to today’s events, Canada’s PM, Mark Carney, wrote on X: “One of the first actions taken by Canada’s new government in March 2025 was to impose additional sanctions on Nicolás Maduro’s brutally oppressive and criminal regime – unequivocally condemning his grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations, and corruption. Canada has not recognised the illegitimate regime of Maduro since it stole the 2018 election. The Canadian government therefore welcomes the opportunity for freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity for the Venezuelan people.
“Canada has long supported a peaceful, negotiated, and Venezuelan-led transition process that respects the democratic will of the Venezuelan people. In keeping with our long-standing commitment to upholding the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We stand by the Venezuelan people’s sovereign right to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.
“Canada attaches great importance to resolution of crises through multilateral engagement and is in close contact with international partners about ongoing developments. We are first and foremost ready to assist Canadians through our consular officials and our embassy in Bogotá, Colombia, and will continue to support Venezuelan refugees.”
The UK’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, has backed a transition of power in Venezuela.
He said his Labour administration would “shed no tears” over the end of Nicolás Maduro’s regime and said Britain would discuss the “evolving situation” with American counterparts over the coming days.
Starmer said in a statement: “The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela.
“We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.
“I reiterated my support for international law this morning.
“The UK government will discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”
Starmer earlier refused to be drawn on whether the US military action broke international law, saying he wanted to talk to president Donald Trump, with whom he had not spoken on Saturday morning, and allies to “establish the facts”.
About 500 UK nationals are in Venezuela and work is continuing to “safeguard” them, the prime minister said, while the UK’s Foreign Office advised against all travel to the country.
“As you know, I always say and believe we should all uphold international law, but I think at this stage, fast-moving situation, let’s establish the facts and take it from there,” Starmer told broadcasters.
Share
Updated at 08.49 AEDT
08.21 AEDT
Summary: the day so far
It’s been an incredibly dramatic day so far but a confusing one, in the US and Venezuela, as the world watches the aftermath of a lightning military strike overnight that resulted in Nicolás Maduro being captured by US forces and taken to an American aircraft carrier in handcuffs. The toppled Venezuelan president was en route to New York early on Saturday, where the Trump administration has promised to bring him up in court, indicted on drug trafficking and other federal criminal offenses. He could arrive later the same day, even. Donald Trump claims the US is now running Venezuela, with the remaining regime’s cooperation – a claim sharply contrast
The United Nations security council is due to hold an emergency meeting on Monday as a result of the United States attacking Venezuela early on Saturday and snatching up its president, Nicolás Maduro, holding him en route to New York where it will confront him with federal criminal charges related to drug trafficking and weapons.
Nicolás Maduro’s vice-president in Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, a loyalist, has appeared on television and radio there, from the capital Caracas, contradicting Donald Trump’s description of her now being president and cooperating with the US. She said Maduro was Venezuela’s “only” president and that Venezuela would not be colonized.
Rodríguez appears to be in Caracas. This followed hours of rumors that she might have been in Russia or parts unknown, but not in Venezuela.
Donald Trump called Cuba a failing nation, and US secretary of state Marco Rubio called the communist-run island, from which his parents fled to the US in the 1950s, a “disaster”. Both hinted that they could reprise their action in Venezuela in Cuba, but made no direct threats.
Trump was asked about his current thoughts on Russian president Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war perpetrated by that country in Ukraine. Trump said he was “not thrilled” with Putin and called the war a bloodbath.
Donald Trump said he and his administration have not talked to Venezuela’s exiled opposition leader María Corina Machado since the capture of Maduro. He took on a dismissive tone and said she would not run Venezuela as she did not have the necessary support or respect in the country. It was unclear whether he was talking about the Venezuelan regime or the general population. Machado won the latest Nobel Peace prize.
United Nations secretary general António Guterres said the Trump administration was setting a “dangerous precedent” with its unilateral action inside Venezuela. He later said he thought the US had probably breached the founding charter of the UN.
At a press conference in Florida, Trump said that US oil companies will take control of Venezuela’s state oil operation. There has been no confirmation of anything like this from US oil companies, nor how such an arrangement would work.
Donald Trump claimed at his press conference earlier that the United States is “going to run” Venezuela for the time being. He gave no specific details about how that might happen, later implying the remains of the Maduro regime were cooperating with US leadership – something soon after contradicted by Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez.
Trump posted a picture on his Truth Social platform that he states is “Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima”, which appeared to show the captured Venezuelan president in handcuffs, black goggles and headphones, clutching a water bottle, expressionless.
The US Department of Justice unsealed a fresh version of a federal criminal indictment of Nicolás Maduro. He was indicted by the US in 2020. The superseding indictment now includes his wife and son.
Trump confirmed that the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were heading to New York. Trump told Fox News on Saturday that Maduro and his wife were taken to a ship after their capture by US forces and were headed to the US city.
US attorney general Pam Bondi said the deposed Venezuelan leader and his wife would face criminal charges after an indictment in New York. Bondi vowed in a social media post that the couple will “soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts”.
The United States is going to be “very strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil industry after the operation to capture Maduro, Trump told Fox News on Saturday. He said: “We have the greatest oil companies in the world, the biggest, the greatest, and we’re going to be very much involved in it.”
The US vice-president JD Vance hailed what he called a “truly impressive operation” in Venezuela that culminated in the capture of Maduro. Posting on social media as he reshared Trump’s post about the action, Vance wrote: “The president offered multiple off-ramps, but was very clear throughout this process: the drug trafficking must stop, and the stolen oil must be returned to the United States.”
The US secretary of state Marco Rubio said in a post on X that Maduro is “under indictment for pushing drugs in the United States”. The Republican US senator Mike Lee said on Saturday that Rubio had told him that he “anticipates no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in US custody”.
Venezuela’s government urged citizens to rise up against the US assault and said Washington risked plunging Latin America into chaos with “an extremely serious” act of “military aggression”. “The entire country must mobilise to defeat this imperialist aggression,” it added. It accused the US of launching a series of attacks against civilian and military targets in the South American country, after explosions rocked its capital, Caracas, before dawn on Saturday.
Explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in Caracas in the early hours of Saturday. In its statement, Venezuela’s government confirmed that the city had come under attack, as had three other states: Miranda, La Guaira and Aragua.
Venezuela has accused the US of trying to “seize control” of the country’s resources, in particular its oil and minerals. The country has called on the international community to denounce what it called a flagrant violation of international law that put millions of lives at risk.
The president of neighbouring Colombia, Gustavo Petro, called for an immediate emergency session of the UN security council, saying on social media that Venezuela had come under attack.
UK prime minister Keir Starmer has reacted to Donald Trump’s military action in Venezuela saying: “The UK was not involved in any way in this operation.” He added that “we should all uphold international law”. France said the US military operation that resulted in the capture of Maduro went against the principles of international law.
Russia has demanded “immediate” clarification about the circumstances of the capture of Maduro during an attack ordered by Trump. Earlier, Venezuela’s vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, said the US needed to provide “proof of life” for Maduro.
Venezuelan allies Russia, Cuba and Iran were quick to condemn the strikes as a violation of sovereignty. Tehran urged the UN security council to stop the “unlawful aggression”. Among major Latin American nations, Argentina’s president Javier Milei lauded Venezuela’s new “freedom” while Mexico condemned the intervention and Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said it crossed “an unacceptable line”.
Share
World
Europe
US news
Americas
Asia
Australia
Middle East
Africa
Inequality
Global development
News
Opinion
Sport
Culture
Lifestyle
Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning
Sign up for our email
About us
Information
Help
Complaints & corrections
Contact us
Tip us off
SecureDrop
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Tax strategy
Terms & conditions
All topics
All writers
Newsletters
Digital newspaper archive
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Threads
TikTok
YouTube
Advertise with us
Guardian Labs
Work for us
Accessibility settings
Guardian Australia acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of Country throughout Australia and their connections to land, waters and community. We pay respect by giving voice to social justice, acknowledging our shared history and valuing the cultures of First Nations.
Back to top
© 2026 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (dcr)
New Imperial War: The U.S. Assault on Venezuela Exposes a Desperate Empire
January 3, 2026, By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/03/new-imperial-war-the-u-s-assault-on-venezuela-exposes-a-desperate-empire/
Multiple blasts were reported in Venezuela’s capital early Saturday after President Trump authorized U.S. airstrikes targeting military installations and other sites.
Residents of Caracas saw plumes of smoke and reported hearing aircraft flying at low altitude around 2 a.m. local time, according to the Associated Press and Reuters. Power outages were reported in the southern part of the city near a military base.
Videos shared on social media appeared to show several explosions across the capital. CBS News cited U.S. officials as confirming that the strikes were ordered by Trump.
The United States carried out a series of military strikes on Venezuela early Saturday, targeting key military installations in and around Caracas, as President Donald Trump claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country.
Explosions were reported around 2 a.m. local time in the Venezuelan capital and neighboring states, with smoke visible over parts of Caracas and power outages reported near major military facilities. Among the targets cited in multiple reports were La Carlota Air Base, Fuerte Tiuna, and other strategic sites. Social media videos showed aircraft overhead and active air defenses, while witnesses described low-flying helicopters across the city.
In a statement posted to social media, Trump said the United States had “successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela” and that Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores had been taken into U.S. custody. The White House said the operation was conducted in coordination with U.S. law enforcement and confirmed that no American casualties had been reported. Trump later described the mission as “brilliant,” asserting it was carried out under his Article II constitutional powers.
Following U.S. strikes in Venezuela and the reported seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores, several senior members of the government appeared to remain active. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, next in the line of succession, issued statements after the attacks, though her location was unclear amid reports she may have been in Russia. Other key allies, including Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, also appeared to have survived. Their continued presence suggests that despite the removal of Maduro, the Venezuelan government was still functioning, albeit under significant strain, in the immediate aftermath.
According to Venezuelanalysis and other outlets, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez said the government had not been provided proof of life for Maduro and demanded clarification from Washington. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López confirmed that U.S. bombings had occurred in Caracas and surrounding areas, stating that authorities were assessing damage and casualties. Venezuelan officials reported civilian and military deaths but did not provide specific figures.
The Venezuelan government declared a nationwide state of emergency, referred to as a state of “External Commotion,” activated national defense plans, and ordered the deployment of armed forces across the country. In an official communiqué, Caracas accused the United States of a “flagrant violation” of the United Nations Charter and described the strikes as an act of aggression threatening regional peace. The government said it would file formal complaints with the United Nations, CELAC, and the Non-Aligned Movement, while reserving the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
International reaction was swift. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned the strikes and the reported capture of Maduro, calling the action “an unacceptable affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty” and warning it set a dangerous precedent for the international community. Tweeting this: -[on original]
Colombian President Gustavo Petro described the operation as an act of aggression against Latin America and announced that Colombian forces were being deployed to the Venezuelan border amid concerns over potential refugee flows. He underscored the stakes of the crisis, saying, “Without sovereignty, there is no nation. Peace is the way, and dialogue between peoples is fundamental for national unity. Dialogue and more dialogue is our proposal.”
This should also be the standard for how foreign policy is conducted more broadly. War should not be the default response — especially in cases like this, where there appears to be a clear disregard for factual accuracy.
Petro, also tweeting about his role on the UN security council, stated “Colombia since yesterday is a member of the United Nations Security Council and [it] must be convened immediately. Establish the international legality of the aggression against Venezuela.”
We might not hold our breath, however, since two of the five permanent members of the Security Council are currently involved in questionable wars. Yet we can only hope that Petro and more world leaders take up the mantle of ending wars and allowing diplomacy and sovereignty to be the norm. If the royal “we” could stay out of other countries’ internal affairs, certainly we would not have wars in Ukraine or, now, in Venezuela — just to name a few. But empire is going to empire, and like a cockroach, the neocon agenda seems never to die.
This 1984-level war justification comes as the Trump administration has repeatedly accused Nicolás Maduro of narco-terrorism and questioned his legitimacy as Venezuela’s leader. In a post on X from July 2025, Marco Rubio reiterated the administration’s position on Maduro’s authority, stating that “his regime is NOT the legitimate government.” adding that “Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization which has taken possession of a country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States,” Rubio wrote.
Today Rubio continues to repeat this rhetoric, his first post was a re-tweet of the July post.
The neocon war on drugs justification rings hollow as Trump’s often contradictory framing or barefaced lying. Much of the available reporting points out that major drug-trafficking flows have long been linked to countries such as Honduras, including the case of its former president, Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced in 2024 to 45 years in prison for conspiring to distribute more than 400 tons of cocaine and related firearms offenses; he was pardoned by Trump on Dec. 1. Against that backdrop, it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the pretense that this action is about narcotics enforcement rather than a colonial-style power grab.
With responses from other leaders across the Americas came swiftly. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel wrote: “This is state terrorism against the brave Venezuelan people and against Our America,” and is rightfully demanding urgent action from the international community in response to the “criminal attack.”
Bolivia’s former leftist president, Evo Morales, also condemned the U.S. action, saying he “strongly and unequivocally” repudiated the attack on Venezuela. “It is brutal imperialist aggression that violates its sovereignty,” Morales said, expressing “full solidarity with the Venezuelan people in resistance.”
Across the region, governments warned that the escalation risked destabilizing Latin America and undermining long-standing efforts to preserve the region as a zone of peace.
In the United States, antiwar organizations quickly mobilized. The ANSWER Coalition issued a call for nationwide protests on Saturday, Jan. 3, arguing that the operation was driven by geopolitical and economic interests rather than security concerns. Within hours, demonstrations were announced in multiple cities, including a protest outside the White House. The listing is available at https://answercoalition.org/venezuela
As of Saturday morning, the situation in Venezuela remained fluid, with conflicting accounts over Maduro’s status and mounting international pressure for clarification. The United Nations had not yet issued a formal response, though several world leaders called for an emergency international review of the U.S. action.
This is a developing story. More will come.
We have become the worst version of a desperate empire: taking over countries, attacking them under false pretenses, lying about our reasons, and stealing natural resources we claim are “ours.” This is an affront to any reasonable person — an act of cowardice and moral failure that reveals clear colonial intent.
Our so-called leadership, through threats directed at remaining Venezuelan politicians, reminds us of classic warmonger tactics. Trump suggested on Fox News that his administration would continue targeting Venezuelan government officials if they sided with Maduro. “If they stay loyal, the future is really bad — really bad for them,” he said. “I’d say most of them have converted.”
Trump’s first term was marked by the implied repudiation of “forever wars,” and now, with the influence of figures like Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller, the United States has bombed more than nine countries and is engaging in yet another unprovoked conflict. There is no easy way to say this, but it makes more sense now why the president has avoided seriously confronting Putin — he is following the same playbook. Of course, it is also the same approach we have used since the beginning of this dying empire, with figures such as JFK, LBJ, and GW Bush — just to name a few.
Here is the full response of the Venezuelan government, in an English translation by Ben Norton.
Read more: New Imperial War: The U.S. Assault on Venezuela Exposes a Desperate EmpireCOMMUNIQUÉ BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela rejects, repudiates, and denounces before the international community the extremely grave military aggression perpetrated by the current Government of the United States of America against Venezuela’s territory and population in civilian and military sites of the city of Caracas, capital of the Republic, and the states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira. This act constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, especially its articles 1 and 2, which enshrine respect for sovereignty, the juridical equality of States and the prohibition of the use of force. Such aggression threatens international peace and stability, specifically in Latin America and the Caribbean, and places the lives of millions of people at grave risk. The objective of this attack is none other than to take control of Venezuela’s strategic resources, particularly its oil and minerals, attempting to forcibly break the Nation’s political independence. They will not succeed. After more than 200 years of independence, the people and their legitimate Government stand firm in defense of sovereignty and the inalienable right to decide their destiny. The attempt to impose a colonial war to destroy the republican form of government and force a “regime change”, in alliance with the fascist oligarchy, will fail like all previous attempts. Since 1811, Venezuela has confronted and defeated empires. When in 1902 foreign powers bombarded our coasts, President Cipriano Castro proclaimed: “The insolent foot of the foreigner has profaned the sacred soil of the Homeland”. Today, with the moral authority of Bolívar, Miranda, and our liberators, the Venezuelan people rise once again to defend their independence against imperial aggression. People to the streets The Bolivarian Government calls on all social and political forces of the country to activate mobilization plans and repudiate this imperialist attack. The people of Venezuela and their National Bolivarian Armed Forces, in perfect popular-military-police fusion, are deployed to guarantee sovereignty and peace. Simultaneously, Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy will file corresponding complaints before the UN Security Council, the Secretary General of said organization, CELAC, and the Non-Aligned Movement, demanding condemnation of and accountability for the US Government. President Nicolás Maduro has ordered all national defense plans to be implemented at the appropriate time and circumstances, in strict adherence to the provisions of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Organic Law on States of Exception, and the Organic Law of National Security. In this regard, President Nicolás Maduro has signed and ordered the implementation of the Decree declaring a state of External Commotion throughout the national territory, to protect the rights of the population, the full functioning of republican institutions, and to immediately transition to armed struggle. The entire country must be activated to defeat this imperialist aggression. Likewise, he has ordered the immediate deployment of the Command for the Integral Defense of the Nation and the Directional Bodies for Integral Defense in all states and municipalities of the country. In strict adherence to article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Venezuela reserves the right to exercise legitimate defense to protect its people, its territory, and its independence. We call on the peoples and governments of Latin America, the Caribbean, and the world to mobilize in active solidarity against this imperial aggression. As Supreme Commander Hugo Chávez Frías stated, “In the face of any circumstance of new difficulties, whatever their magnitude, the response of all patriots… is unity, struggle, battle, and victory”. Caracas, 3 January 2025
Chris Hedges: Decline and Fall
We live in an eerily similar historical moment. Britain, within 12 years of Kipling’s lament, was plunged into the collective suicide of World War I, a conflict that took the lives of over a million British and Commonwealth troops and doomed the British Empire.
Donald Trump boasts that he will be the “fertilization president.” American couples — meaning white couples — will be given incentives by his administration to have more children to counter declining birth rates.
December 29, 2025 , By Chris Hedges , ScheerPost, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/29/chris-hedges-decline-and-fall/
At the start of the 20th century, the British Empire was, like our own, in terminal decline. Sixty percent of Englishmen were physically unfit for military service, as are 77 percent of American youth. The Liberal Party, like the Democratic Party, while it acknowledged the need for reform, did little to address the economic and social inequalities that saw the working class condemned to live in substandard housing, breathe polluted air, be denied basic sanitation and health care and forced to work in punishing and poorly paid jobs.
The Tory government, in response, formed an Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration to examine the “deterioration of certain classes of the population,” meaning, of course, the urban poor. It became known as the report on “the degeneracy of our race.” Analogies were swiftly drawn, with much accuracy, with the decadence and degeneracy of the late Roman Empire.
Rudyard Kipling, who romanticized and mythologized the British Empire and its military, in his 1902 poem “The Islanders,” warned the British that they had grown complacent and flaccid from hubris, indolence and privilege. They were unprepared to sustain the Empire. He despaired of the loss of martial spirit by the “sons of the sheltered city — unmade, unhandled, unmeet,” and called for mandatory conscription. He excoriated the British military for its increasing reliance on mercenaries and colonial troops, “the men who could shoot and ride,” just as mercenaries and militias increasingly augment American forces overseas.
Kipling damned the British public for its preoccupation with “trinkets” and spectator sports, including “the flannel fools at the wicket or the muddied oafs at the goals,” athletes whom he believed should have been fighting in the war in South Africa. He foresaw in the succession of British military disasters during the South African Boer War, which had recently ended, the impending loss of British global dominance, much as the two decades of military fiascos in the Middle East have eroded U.S. hegemony.
The preoccupation with physical decline, also interpreted as moral decline, is what led Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to decry “fat generals,” and order women in the military to meet the “highest male standards” for physical fitness. It is what is behind his “Warrior Ethos Tasking,” plans to enhance physical fitness, grooming standards and military readiness.
We live in an eerily similar historical moment. Britain, within 12 years of Kipling’s lament, was plunged into the collective suicide of World War I, a conflict that took the lives of over a million British and Commonwealth troops and doomed the British Empire.
H.G. Wells, who anticipated trench warfare, tanks and machine guns, was one of the very few to see where Britain was headed. In 1908, he wrote “The War in the Air.” He warned that future wars would not be limited to antagonistic nation-states but would become global. These wars, as was true in the 1935 Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War and World War II, would carry out the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians. He also foresaw in “The World Set Free,” the dropping of atomic bombs.
Nearly one third of the population in Edwardian England endured abject poverty. The cause, as Seebohm Rowntree noted in his study of the slums, was not, as conservatives claimed, alcoholism, laziness, a lack of initiative or responsibility by the poor, but because “the wages paid for unskilled labour in York are insufficient to provide food, shelter, and clothing adequate to maintain a family of moderate size in a state of bare physical efficiency.”
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of poverty among Western industrialized nations, estimated by many economists at far above the official figure of 10.6 percent. In real terms, some 41 percent of Americans are poor or low-income, with 67 percent living paycheck to paycheck.
British eugenicists from the Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics — which was funded by Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics” — advocated “positive eugenics,” the “improvement” of the race by encouraging those deemed superior — always white members of the middle and upper classes — to have large families. “Negative eugenics” was advocated to limit the number of children born to those deemed “unfit.” This would be achieved through sterilization and the separation of genders.
Winston Churchill, who was home secretary in the liberal government of H.H. Asquith in 1910-11, backed the forced sterilization of the “feeble minded,” calling them a “national and race danger” and “the source from which the stream of madness is fed.”
The Trump White House, led by Stephen Miller, is intent on carrying out a similar culling of American society. Those endowed with “negative” hereditary traits — based usually on race — are condemned as human contaminants that an army of masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are terrorizing, incarcerating and purging from society.
Miller, in emails leaked in 2019, lauds the 1973 novel “The Camp of the Saints,” written by Jean Raspail. It chronicles a flotilla of South Asian people who invade France and destroy Western civilization. The immigrants, who the Trump administration are now hunting down, are described as “kinky-haired, swarthy-skinned, long-despised phantoms” and “teeming ants toiling for the white man’s comfort.” The South Asian mobs are “grotesque little beggars from the streets of Calcutta,” led by a feces-eating “gigantic Hindu” known as “the turd eater.”
This, in its most scurrilous form, is the thesis of the “Great Replacement” theory, the belief that the white races in Europe and North America are being “replaced” by “lesser breeds of the earth.”
Donald Trump boasts that he will be the “fertilization president.” American couples — meaning white couples — will be given incentives by his administration to have more children to counter declining birth rates. In the vernacular of the right wing, those who promote this updated version of “positive eugenics” are known as “pronatalists.” The Trump administration will also reduce refugees admitted to the United States next year to the token level of 7,500, with most of these spots filled by white South Africans.
Trump’s allies in Big Tech are busy creating the fertility infrastructure to conceive children with “positive” hereditary traits. Sam Altman, who has been awarded a one-year military contract worth $200 million from the Trump administration, has invested in technology to allow parents to gene edit their children before conception to produce “designer babies.”
Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir, which is facilitating the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, has backed an embryo screening company called Orchid Health. Orchid promises to help parents design “healthy” children through embryo testing and selection technology. Elon Musk, a fervent pronatalist and believer in the Great Replacement theory, is reportedly a client of the startup. The goal is to empower parents to screen embryos for IQ and select “their children’s intelligence before birth,” as the Wall Street Journal notes.
We are making the same self-defeating mistakes made by the British political class that oversaw the decline of the British Empire and orchestrated the suicidal folly of World War I. We blame the poor for their own impoverishment. We believe in the superiority of the white race over other races, crushing the plethora of voices, cultures and experiences that create a dynamic society. We seek to counter injustices, along with economic and social inequality, with hypermasculinity, militarism and force, which accelerates the internal decay and propels us toward a disastrous global war, perhaps, in our case, with China.
Wells scoffed at the idiocy of an entitled ruling class that was unable to analyze or address the social problems it had created. He excoriated the British political elite for its ignorance and ineptitude. They had vulgarized democracy, he wrote, with their racism, hypernationalism and simplistic cliché-ridden public discourse, stoked by a sensationalist tabloid press.
When a crisis came, Wells warned, these mandarins, like our own, would set the funeral pyre of empire alight.
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 