Now You See Them… Now You Don’t – Trumpland Is a Man’s World
Focusing on Noem and Bondi, however, misses the larger point. This first year of Trump 2.0 has seen women, one after another, summarily gone from their posts (some fired, some resigning) as part of a larger DEI purge. As I pointed out in a TomDispatch piece in January, the military has led the way with a full-scale attack on women. And that trend started on the administration’s very first day in office when Trump removed Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard.
Fagan was, in fact, the first woman ever to serve as a military service chief and, among other things, she had exposed “Operation Fouled Anchor,” a previously covered-up investigation into sexual harassment and assault in the Coast Guard. Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy, was fired as well. Both have now — no surprise — been replaced by men.
Women Leaders and Trump 2.0
Karen J. Greenberg Tom Dispatch, May 10, 2026, https://tomdispatch.com/now-you-see-them-now-you-dont/
It’s been a tough couple of months for women officials in Washington — or, more accurately, in Trumpland. In early March (Women’s History Month, by the way), in a Truth Social post, the president fired Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the second woman ever to hold that title. Weeks later, also in a social media post, he fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, the third woman ever to serve as head of the Department of Justice.
While in the first year of his first presidency, Trump 1.0 had fired numerous officials, this time around, Bondi and Noem, who ran the two largest law enforcement agencies in the country, were the first cabinet officials to be dismissed. Both — no surprise — were replaced by men. And just as I was writing this piece, Trump removed another female cabinet official, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Meanwhile, speculation lingers about the possible firing of a fourth female cabinet member, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the second woman to hold that job. And whether or not Gabbard is formally dismissed, she has recently been effectively sidelined, as her absence from White House meetings on the war in Iran suggests.
Notably, Noem, Bondi, Chavez-DeRemer, and Gabbard are, of course, all women. As Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic House of Representatives member from Texas, recently tweeted, “Well… first it was Kristi Noem, now it’s Pam Bondi… it would be too much like right that Pete [Hegseth] be next. I see a theme. He [Trump] will throw the incompetent women under the bus a lot faster than the incompetent men.”
Equal Opportunity Failure
Crockett has a point. Pete Hegseth’s leadership at the Department of Defense (now all too appropriately retitled the Department of War) has erased time-honored rules and norms in staggering ways. He has, for instance, drastically reduced media access to the Pentagon, purged employees who disagreed with him, as well as those he deemed to be DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) appointees, and is now exerting his leadership in a war against Iran for which the exit strategy seems elusive at best, despite his assurance that, as the Guardian reported, “the U.S. would not get bogged down in the conflict.” The U.S. operation, he insisted, was not a “democracy-building exercise,” adding that ‘this is not Iraq. This is not endless.’”
Hegseth’s behavior has led Arizona Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari to file articles of impeachment against him on six charges. They include the commission of war crimes, especially the killing of at least 165 people, including many children, at a girls’ primary school in Iran hit by a U.S. missile; negligence with sensitive information; and conducting an unauthorized war without congressional approval. In the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren has followed up with a letter to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Paul Atkins asking for an investigation into whether Hegseth attempted to profit from his financial investments in the run-up to the war in Iran.
Crockett might just as easily have highlighted the wayward behavior of FBI Director Kash Patel, recently exposed in a piece in The Atlantic describing “excessive drinking” that interfered with his job (an article over which Patel immediately filed suit for $250 million in damages), or the trashing of health standards by Health and Human Resources Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
But whatever the future of those reprehensible men in cabinet positions, it’s unfortunately difficult to defend either Bondi or Noem for their actions while in office. Like their male counterparts, both defiantly tossed professionalism and decency to the winds. Under Noem, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) leading the way, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was weaponized and transformed into President Trump’s version of a homeland militia. It’s hardly a stretch to make the comparison to Hitler’s Brownshirts.
So far, in Trump’s second term in office, ICE has terrorized schools and businesses, while cruelly imprisoning migrants without due process of any sort. It has held children in detention centers under abhorrent conditions, attacked peaceful protesters, and killed citizens on the streets of America. Worse yet, Noem appropriated tens of millions of dollars to cover the costs of a pro-ICE ad featuring herself riding a horse in front of Mount Rushmore saying, “Break Our Laws, We’ll Punish You.” (Nor should we imagine that things will get any better without her.)
Bondi’s ouster followed failures of a different order — namely, her stumbling, wildly inept efforts to fulfill Trump’s agenda. She proved unable even to make the case of Trump pal Jeffrey Epstein go away, while what she had to say when releasing documents related to him led to accusations that her statements were riddled with falsehoods. Meanwhile, prosecutions under her watch of New York State Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, high-priority items for the president, fell apart.
And when called before Congress to explain herself, her rank lack of civility resembled the behavior of a spoiled teenager berating her teacher, knowing that, since her parents wielded power over the school, she should fear no reprisals. Under Bondi, the sacrosanct mission of the Department of Justice as an agency independent of the White House was summarily tossed aside (as the roof-to-ground-floor Trump banner that hung from its office building demonstrated).
Female Purges
Focusing on Noem and Bondi, however, misses the larger point. This first year of Trump 2.0 has seen women, one after another, summarily gone from their posts (some fired, some resigning) as part of a larger DEI purge. As I pointed out in a TomDispatch piece in January, the military has led the way with a full-scale attack on women. And that trend started on the administration’s very first day in office when Trump removed Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard.
Fagan was, in fact, the first woman ever to serve as a military service chief and, among other things, she had exposed “Operation Fouled Anchor,” a previously covered-up investigation into sexual harassment and assault in the Coast Guard. Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy, was fired as well. Both have now — no surprise — been replaced by men. As it stands, there are no longer any four-star women generals in the military. And only this month, we learned that Secretary of War Hegseth had reportedly removed two women from a promotion list to become one-star Army generals.
Outside of the Department of Defense, the resignations or firings of women in leadership positions have abounded across agencies ranging from the National Labor Relations Board to the Federal Trade Commission and the CDC.
This widespread purge of women stands in stark contrast to their presence in office during the Biden years. Under President Joe Biden, women held just under 50% of all cabinet or cabinet-level positions. And let’s not forget Kamala Harris, the first female vice-president in American history. It’s worth noting as well that, under Biden, the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Secretary of Defense were both women.
Trump is not unmindful of those statistics. Last year, he boasted about the presence of eight women among his 24 cabinet officers, or a third of his cabinet. As Business Insider reports, he was “thrilled to say that we have more women in our Cabinet than any Republican president in the history of our country.” Following the removal of Noem, Bondi, and Chavez-DeRemer, however, women occupy just over one-fifth of the cabinet positions — admittedly an improvement on his first term when, after two years of resignations and firings, women held only 13% of all cabinet-level positions.)
Project 2025
It’s worth noting that the path to the current backlash against women, including all the purges and punishments we’re now witnessing in real time, didn’t come about by mere happenstance. In the run-up to the 2024 election, the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a Project 2025 report entitled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a 900-plus page blueprint for overhauling the federal bureaucracy. It called for gutting DEI programs, eliminating and reducing the size of any offices that didn’t serve a conservative agenda, and enhancing the powers of the president. Among its many recommendations, Project 2025 touted an anti-female message, including removing “gender equality” language from government websites, emphasizing “family planning,” and recommending limitations on access to contraception and cuts to federal funding for abortions.
Although Trump repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025, many of its recommended policies have indeed become our new reality, including matters affecting women. In the first months of Trump’s second term, images of women, as well as persons of color and LGBTQ+ individuals, were systematically erased from government websites. So, too, protections for women’s health were tossed to the winds. As the abortion rights group Reproductive Freedom for All has reported, as of January 2026, “53% of [Project 2025’s] policies attacking reproductive freedom are completed or in progress.”
And now, there is a brand-new Heritage Foundation report devoted to the need to counter the declining birth rate and the fragility of the American family. “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 20 Years” calls for the restructuring of incentives to promote childbearing and “revive the institution of marriage.” Signaling its message, the report makes the case for privileging marriage and children over career advancement and less traditional family arrangements caused by divorce and single-parenthood. While the report underscores the family roles incumbent upon both men and women, the fact is that reforms aimed at incentivizing childbearing will fall primarily on women, while those aimed at privileging childrearing over career choices would likely fall most heavily on women as well.
MS NOW’s Ali Velshi and “Velshi” Segment Producer Amel Ahmed summed up the report well, pointing out that its overall takeaway is: “the freedoms fought [for] and won by America’s women aren’t progress; they are the problem.”
Of course, in the era of Donald Trump, none of this should come as a surprise, not when you consider the histories of the men who are now running the show: a president who, in addition to once touting the fact that he could “grab them by the pussy,” has been convicted in E. Jean Carroll’s civil suit over accusations of sexual abuse and defamation to the tune of $83.3 million in damages, a decision upheld by an appellate court. And let’s not forget that Trump’s first nominee for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, withdrew his name from consideration under a cloud of accusations of wrongful behavior, including sexual misconduct. Not to mention the shadow cast by the number of individuals within the current administration whose names are said to appear in the Epstein files. While no formal charges of sexual misconduct have been issued against them, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is reportedly being pressured to resign over his alleged ties to Epstein.
A Future Government Without Women?
It’s hard to predict which women will come under the axe from Trump and crew in the coming months. But the onslaught has understandably led women from both sides of the political spectrum to sound the alarm. Months before she announced her resignation from Congress, former Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene had already expressed her own misgivings about the misogyny of the Republican leaders in Congress.
When Trump rescinded New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s nomination to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations and replaced her with Michael Waltz (who had embarrassed himself by adding a reporter to a private Signal chat about possible future strikes against the Houthis in Yemen), Greene saw it as a sign of a general trend of sidelining women. She summed it up as a case where Stefanik “gets shafted,” while Waltz “gets rewarded.” For Greene, it was proof of an overwhelming Trump administration mood of: “She’s a woman, so it was OK to do that to her somehow.”
Greene’s dissatisfaction wasn’t just over Stefanik but over the general trend that has led to only one Republican woman chairing a committee in Congress. Notably, alongside Greene, Republican representatives Nancy Mace and Laurent Boebert signed a petition pressuring the Department of Justice to release information on the Epstein files.
The signs are everywhere. Expectations are disappearing that women will hold leadership positions inside the Trump administration or in the halls of Congress (unless the Democrats win decisively in November). If you didn’t realize it before, you really can’t hide from it now. The attack on diversity in government has become pervasive and (at least as yet) is undeterred, targeting with abandon females, as well as people of color, immigrants, and critics of the president. In other words, the fate of women leaders should provide us with an insight, however dispiriting, into just how quickly the values and assumptions that guided this nation’s progress in matters of race, gender, and ethnicity for decades have disappeared.
What once amounted to progress is indeed now seen as the problem. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the exorcising of women from the halls of government.
Karen J. Greenberg is a future studies fellow at New America, a non-resident research fellow at the NYU Reiss Center for Law and Security, and co-host of the SpyTalk podcast. She is the author of many books, including Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump.
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)Re: Comments on the Integrated Tailored Impact StatementGuidelines for the Deep Geological Repository (DGR)For Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project
There is going to be a public impact assessment process. Now is the time to debate the alternatives for the first time in public.
TO – Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), May 10 2026, https://www.ccnr.org/IAAC_NWMO_Guidelines_CCNR_2026.pdf
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) has reviewed the Draft
Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository
(DGR) For Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel, a Project of the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO), and offers the following comments on those Draft Guidelines.
Stated Purpose of the Project
The stated purpose of the project is highly suspect because it is couched in selfcontradictory language. In its Initial Description of the project (p.v) the proponent states:
“Canada’s nuclear power plants have provided, and are expected to continue
providing, clean, reliable, and low-carbon energy for decades. However,
used nuclear fuel remains radioactive for a very long time and therefore
requires careful, permanent management to avoid placing a burden on future
generations.” Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)
Initial Project Description
Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project
December 2025
It is ironic that nuclear power is described, in two consecutive sentences, as a “clean”
energy source, but one whose waste byproducts nevertheless remain dangerously
radioactive for such “a very long time”, that extraordinary measures are required to
“avoid placing a burden on future generations.”
It is a stunning example of cognitive dissonance; that is, “the mental discomfort or
psychological stress experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory
beliefs, values, or attitudes, or acts in a way that goes against them.” On the one hand, the proponent asserts that nuclear power is essentially a problem-free technology, and
on the other hand is ready to expend upwards of $26 billion dollars and 160 years of
effort to “solve” what is a glaringly obvious problem – long-lived highly toxic garbage.
The contradiction in terminology is not just psychologically uncomfortable, but also selfdefeating – for NWMO goes on to enunciate (p.v-vi) its goal, accompanied by a
declaration of the industry’s intentions that belie that goal altogether.
“If implemented, the project would:
- provide a permanent and safe disposal solution for used nuclear fuel;
- support Canada’s commitments to climate action and achieving net-zero by
2050 by ensuring nuclear energy remains a sustainable and socially
responsible energy source; - eliminate the need for future generations to actively manage used nuclear
fuel, thereby reducing long-term environmental risks and advancing
equity in managing Canada’s nuclear legacy.”
A careful reading shows that the “safe disposal solution” for used nuclear fuel is not
really intended to unburden future generations altogether by “eliminating the need to
actively manage used nuclear fuel”, but rather to perpetuate the hazards of keeping
used nuclear fuel at the surface by “ensuring nuclear energy remains … sustainable” as
an energy source. Thus the DGR is not designed to “get rid” of used fuel once and for
all, but rather to clear the decks of older waste and make room for newer waste. The
industry has no intentions of ever stopping the production of that toxic waste material.
This is no small matter. Already the Agency is dealing with three major proposals for
new nuclear plants: the 4800 megawatt Peace River Nuclear Project, the 4800
megawatt Bruce C project, and the 10,000 megawatt Wesleyville project, with more
projects to come…. Already there are over 20,000 megawatts of new nuclear electricity
production planned (including the Darlington New Build). If these new plants are all built,
the annual production of used nuclear fuel in Canada will triple. And that is not the end
of the story. Further nuclear expansion in other provinces and territories is also planned.
To maintain credibility, the Agency cannot turn a blind eye to these contradictions. The
NWMO project currently under review by the Agency is only designated to deal with the waste produced by Canada’s existing operational fleet of 17 CANDU reactors (plus the
waste produced by seven shut-down power reactors and a handful of research reactors
owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited). That is less than one-third of the volume
of high-level radioactive waste now foreseen. It is patently false that the currently
proposed DGR project will “eliminate the need for future generations to actively manage
used nuclear fuel.” The stated goal of the project is, in that sense, fraudulent
In fact, no one intends to move used nuclear fuel into a DGR until it has been out of the
reactor for at least 30 years. Consequently, there will always be thirty years worth of
unburied waste at the surface (either in wet storage or dry storage) for each and every
operating nuclear reactor, no matter how fast the older used fuel may be buried. Based
on existing plans in Canada, the quantity of unburied used nuclear fuel under thirty
years of age will be tripled – or more than tripled – and will keep growing thereafter.
This is hardly “eliminating” the need for future generations to manage used nuclear fuel.
As long as new nuclear reactors are being built and old ones are continuing to operate,
there is no possibility of achieving the visionary dream of all used fuel safely locked
away in underground chambers. Such a dream is a complete fantasy. It would only be
possible if nuclear power were phased out completely.
Instead, a picture emerges of an increasing number of reactors in operation, each with
its core full of intensely radioactive used fuel, and each surrounded by at least thirty
years worth of additional unburied used fuel in wet and dry storage. Even if all the older
fuel (more than 30 years old) were instantly transported over thousands of kilometres to
the site of the DGR, the remaining catastrophe potential at each reactor site would be
only marginally diminished.
Meanwhile additional risks of fuel damage and radioactive releases would arise in
countless locations across the country due to the vicissitudes of travel along some of
the most hazardous routes in Canada. Thousands of citizens – perhaps millions –would
encounter truckloads of high-level radioactive waste passing through their communities, along their highways, over their bridges, for many decades to come. Severe transport
accidents, even if very infrequent, could result in radioactive contamination of people
and the environment in locations far removed from the generating stations. The
combined efforts of moving spent fuel to a repository location while expanding the
production of nuclear electricity at many new sites may very well make the country less
safe than it would have been if traffic of spent fuel were precluded.
In its report on nuclear energy in Ontario entitled “A Race Against Time”, the Ontario
Royal Commission on Electric Power Panning concluded as follows:
“The hazards associated with transportation, in particular the possibility of
accidents and the threat of hijacking, are real possibilities. Hence, the
minimization of handling and transporting spent fuel is a desirable
objective. (p. 91)
We prefer on-site (i.e. generating station site) spent fuel storage to a
centralized facility. We believe that a central facility would presuppose
the reprocessing of spent fuel; it would also involve more transportation
and social and environmental problems. (p. 95)
Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning
A Race Against Time, 1978
CCNR believes that the Guidelines should include an entire section on transportation –
including (a) routine gamma and neutron exposures (i.e. to those in vehicles following a
transport, to those passing the transport in the opposite direction, to those being
repeatedly exposed along the route, to those irradiated during stops), (b) container
designs and testing of same, (c) severe accident scenarios (fires of greater intensity and
duration than those tested for, drops of greater distances and impacts, sidewise
collisions that might bypass impact limiters, et cetera), and (d) emergency measures
planning and the role of first responders.
Alternatives to the Project
The Impact Assessment Act clearly states that the Agency “must” consider “alternatives to the project,” as well as alternative means of carrying out the project. However on page 9 of the Draft Guidelines, we read
“In the Initial Project Description, the proponent described the ‘alternatives to’
the project that are technically and economically feasible to meet the need for
the project and achieve its purpose. This analysis was carried out through
their Choosing a Way Forward study process pursuant to the Nuclear Fuel
Waste Act. IAAC and the CNSC determined that this information is sufficient
and no additional information is required in the Impact Statement related to
‘alternatives to’.”
CCNR strongly disagrees with this determination. A great many Canadians are unaware
of the fact that there is an alternative to the proposed DGR project that is economically
and technically feasible, and that does not involve moving used nuclear fuel off-site. It is
simply called: continued storage at reactor sites. The nuclear industry agrees that this
method is safe and can be continued for centuries without undue difficulty, provided that
the wastes are repackaged when necessary.
When NWMO published “Choosing A Way Forward”, four options were laid out. The
Government of Canada decided to choose the fourth option – the DGR option,
rebranded as “Adaptive Phased Management”. But there was no public process by
which the pros and cons of the “reactor-site storage” alternative could be discussed.
The Government of Canada did not take the opportunity to solicit other perspectives. At
that time CCNR published a critical commentary on “Choosing a Way Forward”, entitled
“Following the Path Backward” ( http://www.ccnr.org/follow_path_back.pdf ). However there
was no public forum or avenue by which any non-industry point of view could be heard.
There was simply no mechanism for dissenting voices to be weighed in the balance.
There is going to be a public impact assessment process. Now is the time to debate the
alternatives for the first time in public. CCNR believes that the Agency has a duty not to
simply accept the proponent’s point of view on the alternatives, even though the
Government has indicated its preference for the DGR approach. According to the IAA
law, any alternative to the project that is technically and economically feasible “must” be
properly addressed during the Impact Assessment process. Politics does not enter into
it. Accordingly, CCNR believes there must be a section in the Guidelines specifically
addressing the “reactor-site storage” alternative to the proposed DGR,
Some may argue that reactor-site storage is not an acceptable practice for a century or
more, because of the possibility of violent external events (airplane crashes, military
attacks), extreme weather events (tsunamis, earthquakes), or societal disintegration
(anarchy, revolution). But if those are legitimate concerns, why are we planning to build
more nuclear reactors? With new reactors operating, there is bound to be on-site
storage of at least thirty years worth of used nuclear fuel, none of which can be put
underground quickly. Continued onsite storage is definitely an alternative.
Some may argue – and indeed NWMO does argue – that we have to think of future
generations, not just for a few centuries, but for many thousands of years into the future.
But in that case there is no urgent need for the DGR right now. As long as we are intent
on expanding the production of nuclear waste, would it not make more sense to wait
until we decide to wind down the nuclear enterprise altogether at some future date?
That way we can deal with all the waste at once instead of maintaining regiments of
high-level waste here, there, and everywhere, with more on the highways every day.
At any rate, if concern for far-future civilizations is NWMO’s concern, why is there no
discussion of far-future civilizations in NWMO’s Project Description? Indeed, how are
we to communicate with far-future civilizations, when we don’t even know what
languages they will be speaking? If we choose to tell them nothing, what will prevent
them from digging up the buried waste, perhaps without them realizing what it is? Will
they imagine it is buried treasure? It will surely be clear that somebody did a gigantic
excavation in the remote past. What could it be? On the other hand, if we leave a
marker saying “Danger, Do Not Dig Here”, I can imagine some future archaeologist
rubbing his hands with glee and saying, “Folks, this looks interesting; let’s dig here!”.
CCNR recommends that there should be a section in the Guidelines dealing with the
question of communicating with future generations, along with what information we
should be communicating. Do we not have an obligation to impart to future generations
the important facts about the radioactive legacy we are leaving them?
“…The Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) of the OECD
NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) launched an initiative ion the “Preservation of
Records, Knowledge and Memory”, hereafter “RK&M Initiative” that ran from
March 2011 to April 2018. Twenty-one organisations from 14 countries,
representing implementing agencies, regulators, policy makers, R&D
institutions, and international ad archiving agencies, plus the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency), contributed to the work.”
Stephan Hotzel, GRS and Chair of the RK&M Initiative
Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD)
Of course this is assuming that the DGR does not turn out to be a colossal mistake, like
the Asse-2 salt mine in Germany. It was used as a deep underground nuclear waste
repository for low and intermediate-level waste for decades until persistent leakage of
radioactive poisons into groundwater led the German government to order the spending
of over $5 billion (equivalent) to remove the radioactive waste from the repository – a
task that will take at least 30 years, a task that is ongoing today.
Alternative Means
The Impact Assessment Act requires the Agency to consider alternative means of
carrying out a proposed project. It seems clear that the greatest danger of experiencing
radioactive releases from used nuclear fuel comes about through the handling or
manipulation of individual fuel bundles that are damaged in some way – small cracks or
pin holes, for example. In general, the less handling of the fuel, the better.
According to NWMO’s current plans for the DGR, spent fuel will be transported to the
site of the DGR where they will then be repackaged prior to emplacement in the
repository. Repackaging entails removing the fuel bundles from the transport containers
and repackaging them in a copper-coated steel burial container.
CCNR recommends that if the DGR Project is given the go-ahead, this final
repackaging step be eliminated, thereby putting less strain on the host community. This
can be accomplished by repackaging the used fuel into burial containers before
shipping them to the DGR site. In this way the “willing host community” and the
neighbouring environment will be better protected from inadvertent radioactive releases
caused by handling damaged fuel bundles. The pre-packaged burial containers can be
lowered into the DGR without ever having to open them up, greatly reducing the
chances of fugitive emissions.
Wall Street Is Pairing Up With the Army to Build Data Centers
“the kinds of things AI can be used for, and some of them are horrifying in terms of the speed with which they can enable killing or the extent to which they can expand surveillance networks,”
For example, reporting by the Military Times suggests that the Pentagon’s Maven AI system, which was developed by Palantir and “classifies targets, recommends weapons systems and generates strike packages in near real time,” was involved in the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, Iran, which killed 155 people, most of them young schoolchildren.
The Army data center buildout comes as the Pentagon increases its use of AI in military operations.
By Derek Seidman , Truthout, May 11, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/wall-street-is-pairing-up-with-the-army-to-build-data-centers/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=65c219f2a8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_05_11_09_33&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-65c219f2a8-650192793
Two trends, seemingly separate, have been accelerating over the past few years. First, Wall Street has been plowing billions of dollars into financing data centers. Second, the U.S. military has been ramping up its use of artificial intelligence (AI).
Now, these two trends are directly merging. In late March 2026, the U.S. Army announced its selection of companies to build and operate two hyperscaled data centers on two different military installations. Both data centers — one at Fort Bliss, Texas, the other at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah — will be backed by some of the world’s top Wall Street firms.
An Army spokesperson told Truthout that the Army has entered into “an exclusive negotiation period” with the companies to negotiate “specific lease economics” on what will be “long term, 50-year” leases.
The spokesperson also said that “[i]nstead of receiving cash for the lease, the Army will be compensated through ‘in-kind consideration,’” meaning that “the Army accepts services or improvements of equal or greater value in lieu of cash rent — specifically, a key portion of the dedicated data computation capabilities to directly support our warfighting needs.”
The data centers will be “100 percent privately financed, built, and operated by the developers,” said the Army spokesperson, and confirmed that they “are indeed commercial data centers” that will be allowed to sell off excess computing capacity commercially.
All this comes as the U.S. military accelerates the use of AI in its operations. One top Army official has said the data centers will be used “to meet rising demands for computational power required for AI applications, including drone swarms, advanced simulations, and real-time operational analysis.”
As one industry website put it, “data centers are war infrastructure now.”
But local residents and some experts are expressing alarm over the data centers due to their environmental impacts and their potential burden on water and electric grids, as well as what these deals represent for military and corporate accountability.
“We’ve seen examples of the kinds of things AI can be used for, and some of them are horrifying in terms of the speed with which they can enable killing or the extent to which they can expand surveillance networks,” Roberto J. González, an expert on U.S. militarism at San José State University, told Truthout.
Army Data Center Deals
The two planned Army data center complexes will be massive projects. The Fort Bliss data center will be located on 1,384 acres of military land and is scheduled to become operational in 2027. It will be built and operated by the Carlyle Group, one of the world’s top private equity firms, and a major investor in data centers more broadly.
According to local news outlet El Paso Matters, the three-gigawatt data center complex “would consume more electricity than all of El Paso Electric’s 460,000 customers combined.”
The Dugway Proving Ground data center project will be built on approximately 1,201 acres and is scheduled to become operational in 2029. It will be constructed by data center builder CyrusOne, which is jointly owned by KKR, also a top private equity firm and huge investor in data centers, and Global Infrastructure Partners, the private infrastructure investment arm of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager.
The Army spokesperson told Truthout that the 50-year leases for the data centers will be “Enhanced Use Leases authorized by Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 2667” — a federal statute permitting the defense secretary to lease out underutilized military land to “promote the national defense or to be in the public interest” — and that “[t]he developer assumes 100 percent of the financial risk to build the infrastructure.”
The deals come after a 2025 executive order from Donald Trump, titled “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” which includes a specific statute allowing the Pentagon to “identify suitable sites on military installations” for data center infrastructure and to “competitively lease available lands” for qualifying projects.
While the deals haven’t been finalized, and key details on the terms of the contracts haven’t been announced, the billionaire-led firms developing the data centers will be allowed to sell excess computing power from the facilities on commercial markets.
These two planned facilities are likely just the beginning of the Army’s data center deals. The military news site Task & Purpose reports Army contract requests for two more data centers at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with the latter including “several potential spots … within one mile of civilian areas and one-half mile of civilian housing.”
Task & Purpose also notes that the Air Force released a request for lease proposals for data centers last year at several bases.
The Army deal breaks new ground for the military. “This will be the first hyper-scale data center that the Pentagon has ever done,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told the Wall Street Journal in March.
“Military AI Dominance”
The planned facilities come as the U.S. military accelerates the integration of AI into its operations and, aided by new Trump administration policies, bolsters its access to data centers, which generate the computing capacity that powers AI.
In January, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth published a memorandum ordering the acceleration of “America’s Military AI Dominance” by “becoming an ‘AI-first’ warfighting force across all components.” The order follows Trump’s January 2025 executive order on “removing barriers to American leadership in artificial intelligence.”
Notably, Hegseth’s memo emphasizes corporate America’s driving role in this initiative, emphasizing that the military’s AI makeover will be “fueled by the accelerating pace of commercial AI innovation coming out of America’s private sector.”
On April 3, a few months after Hegseth’s memo, the Army launched its Army Data Operations Center (ADOC) which, according to a press release, “will serve as the operational engine for the Army’s transformation into a data-centric force.” Labeled a “911 for data,” ADOC will integrate “fragmented” data across the Army’s operations globally to help to “operationalize data” for goals like “shortening the sensor-to-shooter timeline,” and ultimately “securing the Army’s advantage now and in the future,” according to the press release.
González, who’s written about Big Tech’s transformation of the military-industry complex, told Truthout that the Trump administration’s military AI push is focused on developing “autonomous unmanned drones in battlefield situations” that “will rely heavily on AI for everything from navigation, to target selection, to pattern recognition for identifying different potential targets.”
González also said the growing use of AI in the military will bolster “AI decision support systems” that “stitch together different kinds of unstructured and structured data” — which could include things like “metadata about phone conversations, cell phone locations, and internet use patterns” — to “create a list of targets.”
González cites Israel’s genocidal siege against Palestinians as an example. “This is precisely what the Israel Defense Forces were using in [Israel’s] war in Gaza to create lists of suspected enemies who were then targeted for assassination, essentially,” he said.
González warns that growing autonomous, AI-driven military systems will intensify surveillance and weaken the ability to hold individuals to account. “These systems often fail, and they also diffuse accountability when a machine, rather than a person in the loop, is making the decision over life or death,” he said.
For example, reporting by the Military Times suggests that the Pentagon’s Maven AI system, which was developed by Palantir and “classifies targets, recommends weapons systems and generates strike packages in near real time,” was involved in the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, Iran, which killed 155 people, most of them young schoolchildren.
The Military Times noted that Maven “generated hundreds of strike coordinates in the first 24 hours of the Iran campaign” and that it was unclear if any human verified the coordinates that targeted the school, which were based on “outdated intelligence.”
In March, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg declared that Maven would become, as a Reuters headline put it, a “core US military system.”
“Sweetheart Deal”
The proposed data center at Fort Bliss — which would be the third major data center in the El Paso area — has sparked concerns among locals over the potential strain on water and energy resources.
Read more: Wall Street Is Pairing Up With the Army to Build Data CentersWhile many specific terms of the deals remain to be seen, Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, worries that private interests that covet land to build data centers could get a “sweetheart deal” from the Army well below the pricey market rates for data center square footage.
“My primary concern is that it’s a huge public subsidy to these private data center developers,” said Slocum.
The Army spokesperson told Truthout “[t]he return on investment for the American taxpayer” in these deals “is realized through massive cost avoidance.”
“By having private companies fund and build these data centers on underutilized Army land, the developers take on the financial risk, and the Army receives essential data processing capacity without direct cash outlays,” the spokesperson said.
Slocum also noted that data centers could stress the local grids near the military bases — concerns shared by El Paso residents. “Most military bases in the United States are not isolated islands,” he said. “They’re interconnected with the grid, and they’ll need to draw upon additional power resources from the grid.”
Slocum expressed alarm that placing data centers on military land could support the Trump administration’s efforts to protect fossil fuel-generated power production — which often powers data centers — by connecting it to “national security.”
“Military bases are in all 50 states and every corner of the power grid,” said Slocum. “Any power plant connected to that grid can now conceivably be needed for national security to supply a base.”
The Army spokesperson told Truthout that “[m]inimizing community impact was a primary selection criterion for these projects,” and that “[t]he chosen proposals were selected specifically because they feature innovative solutions designed so as not to burden local communities or utilities.”
The Army spokesperson also said that “before any final lease is signed, a detailed environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must be completed.”
“A Larger Tech Ecosystem”
Pentagon deals around tech weaponry with big financial investors are nothing new. González has written about Silicon Valley venture capitalist financiers’ role in transforming the U.S. military-industrial complex, with firms like Palantir and Anduril ascending.
“There’s a shifting of the center of gravity from the traditional, established defense firms like the Lockheed Martins and Boeings to these new groups that we more often associate either with commercial tech products rather than military interests,” said González.
The new Army data centers deals, struck with some of the biggest global diversified Wall Street firms, represent a further strengthening of the nexus between finance and tech for military uses.
“The tech industry is closely aligned with industries like private equity and venture capital firms,” said González. “It’s all a larger tech ecosystem.”
The military also seems intent on striking similar deals in other areas. “Beyond data centers, the Army is looking at doing similar leasing arrangements for critical mineral processing and other types of manufacturing,” reported the Wall Street Journal.
Private equity’s new data center partnerships with the U.S. Army come as this powerful sector is intensifying its investments along the entire AI supply chain. As Truthout previously reported, private equity has been channeling hundreds of billions of dollars into financing data centers and other AI infrastructure — from the data center buildings themselves to the fossil fuel power generation that supports their operations.
The Carlyle Group building the Fort Bliss data center oversees $475 billion in assets. The firm was co-founded by billionaire David Rubenstein, who remains Carlyle’s co-executive chairman. Rubenstein is an influential philanthropic donor, and Joe Biden spent numerous Thanksgivings at Rubenstein’s $34 million Nantucket complex during his presidency.
BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) and KKR own CyrusOne, the firm building the Dugway data center. KKR was co-founded by mega-billionaire Henry Kravis, who remains KKR’s co-chair. The firm oversees $744 billion in assets and is a major data center investor globally.
BlackRock, led by billionaire Larry Fink, is the world’s largest asset manager, overseeing $14 trillion in assets. BlackRock has aggressively moved into private investment in infrastructure in recent years, including data centers.
In March 2025, amid Trump’s threats to “take back” the Panama Canal, BlackRock coordinated with the Trump administration to acquire a massive portfolio of global ports that included two Panama Canal ports.
BlackRock has also been acquiring utilities and power generation companies that have been tied to providing energy to proposed data centers. BlackRock also co-owns Aligned Data Centers, one of the world’s largest data center companies.
Truthout reached out to Carlyle, KKR, and BlackRock for comment. Carlyle and KKR did not respond, and BlackRock’s GIP declined to comment.
Pushing Back
While the data center boom is often portrayed as an unstoppable force, communities across the U.S. have been resisting their construction, sometimes successfully.
“There’s a lot that individual communities can do to push back against these trends,” González emphasized, including supporting the “small but important number of elected officials” who oppose the data center frenzy.
Moreover, the grassroots movement against reckless data center construction is accumulating lessons and growing nearly everywhere.
“People should never lose hope in what political commitment can do to confront even the most powerful institutions or trends,” said González.
The Limits of Power -The War on Iran Will Likely End in American Retreat
Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares, May 11, 2026, https://www.savageminds.co/p/the-limits-of-power
The war against Iran that the United States and Israel launched on 28 February 2026 will likely end in an American retreat. The United States cannot continue the war without producing disastrous consequences. A renewed escalation would likely lead to the destruction of the region’s oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure, causing a prolonged global catastrophe. Iran can credibly impose costs that the United States cannot bear and that the world should not suffer.
The US-Israel war plan was a decapitation strike, sold to President Donald Trump by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and David Barnea, the director of the Mossad. The premise was that an aggressive joint US-Israeli bombing campaign would so degrade the Iranian regime’s command structure, nuclear programme, and IRGC senior leadership that the regime would fracture. The United States and Israel would then impose a pliable government in Tehran.
Trump seems to have been convinced that Iran would follow the same course as had occurred in Venezuela. The US operation in Venezuela in January 2026 removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in what appears to have been a coordinated operation between the CIA and elements inside the Venezuelan state. The US won a more pliant regime, while most of the Venezuelan power structure remained in place. Trump seems to have believed naively that the same outcome would occur in Iran.
The Iran operation, however, failed to produce a pliant regime in Tehran. Iran is not Venezuela, historically, technologically, culturally, geographically, militarily, demographically, or geopolitically. Whatever happened in Caracas had little relation to what would take place in Tehran.
The Iranian government did not fracture. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), far from being decapitated, emerged with a tightened internal command and an expanded role in the national-security architecture. The supreme leader’s office held; the religious establishment closed ranks behind it; and the population rallied against external attack.
Two months on, Trump and Netanyahu have no Iranian successor government under their control, no Iranian surrender to close the war, and no military pathway whatsoever to victory. The only path, and the one the US seems to be taking, is a retreat, with Iran in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and with none of the other issues between the US and Iran settled.
Several reasons explain America’s disastrous miscalculations and Iran’s successes.
First, American leaders fundamentally misjudged Iran. Iran is a great civilisation with 5,000 years of history, deep culture, national resilience, and pride. The Iranian government was not going to succumb to US bullying and bombing, especially reflecting on the fact that Iranians remember how the US destroyed Iranian democracy in 1953 by overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a police state that lasted 27 years.
Second, American leaders dramatically underestimated Iran’s technological sophistication. Iran has world-class engineering and mathematics. It has built an indigenous defence industrial base, with advanced ballistic missiles, a homegrown drone industry, and indigenous orbital launch capability. Iran’s record of technological development, built up despite 40 years of escalating sanctions, is a stunning national achievement.
Third, military technology has shifted in a way that favours Iran. Iran’s ballistic missiles cost a small fraction of the US interceptors deployed against them. Iranian drones cost $20,000; US air-defence interceptor missiles cost $4m. Iran’s antiship missiles, with costs in the low six figures, threaten US destroyers that cost $2-3bn. Iran’s anti-access and area-denial network around the Gulf, layered air defence, drone and missile saturation capacity, and sea-denial capability in the strait have made the operational cost of imposing American will on Iran far higher than the United States can sustain, especially taking into account the retaliatory destruction that Iran can impose on the neighbouring countries.
Fourth, the US policy process has become irrational. The Iran war was decided by a small circle of presidential loyalists at Mar-a-Lago, with no formal interagency process and a National Security Council that had been hollowed out across the preceding year. Trump’s director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned on 17 March with a public letter describing “an echo chamber” used to deceive the president. The war was the output of a decision-making system in which the deliberative apparatus had been turned off.
This was neither a war of necessity, nor a war of choice. It was a war of whim. The underlying premise was hegemony. The United States was attempting to preserve a global dominance that it no longer possesses, and Israel was trying to establish a regional dominance that it will never have.
The likely endgame, given all this, is that the war will end with a return to something close to the status quo ante, except for three new facts on the ground. First, Iran will have operational control over the Strait of Hormuz. Second, Iran’s deterrent posture will be significantly raised. Third, the US long-term military presence in the Gulf will be significantly reduced. The other issues that supposedly prompted the US to attack Iran—Iran’s nuclear programme, regional proxies, the missile arsenal—will most likely be left where they were at the start of the war.
Even as the US retreats, Iran will not press its advantage against its neighbours. Three reasons explain why. First, Iran has a long-term strategic interest in cooperation with its Gulf neighbours, not an ongoing war. Second, Iran will have no interest in restarting a war it has just successfully ended. Third, Iran will be restrained, if any restraint is needed, by its great-power patrons, Russia and China, who both desire a stable and prosperous region. The Iranian leadership understands this clearly, and will stop the fighting.
Trump will no doubt try to depict the coming retreat as some great military and strategic victory. No such claims will be true. The truth is that Iran is far more sophisticated than the United States understood; the decision to go to war was irrational; and the underlying technology of war has shifted against the US. The American empire cannot win the war against Iran at an acceptable financial, military, and political cost. What America can regain, however, is some measure of rationality. It’s time for the US to end its regime-change operations and return to international law and diplomacy.
Trump’s deadly trap: By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape
Monday, 11 May 2026 , By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk, https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/05/11/768410/trump-deadly-trap-rejecting-iran-proposal-us-enters-strategic-nightmare-no-escape
In a theatrical move that fooled no one, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s comprehensive plan to end the war he illegally imposed on the country 70 days ago.
The US president postured as a victor, dismissing Tehran’s proposal with the bluster of a leader who expects capitulation. But the reality on the ground tells a starkly different story.
By every measurable metric, America is the defeated party in the asymmetric war that was imposed on Iran amid the nuclear talks in Geneva on February 28. And his rejection of Iran’s terms in a social media post has not opened new options for Washington, but it has only trapped the US in a deadly three-way crossroads from which there is no easy escape.
Trump’s rejection of Iran’s plan, which was submitted early on Sunday through Pakistani mediators, is a grave strategic error as Americans hold no winning cards.
Iran’s proposal: Fundamental, natural, and uncompromising
Iran’s plan to permanently end the war was never meant to please Washington. It was designed to restore justice, recognize strategic realities, and secure Iran’s undeniable rights after the unprovoked military aggression against the country and maritime banditry.
The core elements of Iran’s proposal are not maximalist. They are rooted in natural and fundamental principles that any nation subjected to unprovoked aggression and holding the upper hand would rightfully insist upon:
- War reparations – Payment of damages and reparations by the aggressor for the destruction inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure, economy, and civilian population.
- Management of the Strait of Hormuz – Recognition of Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway, based on the mechanism already announced by Tehran.
- Lifting of sanctions – The complete removal of all oppressive and illegal sanctions that have targeted the Iranian people for decades.
- Release of frozen assets – The return of billions of dollars of Iranian assets illegally seized by the United States.
- Permanent end to the war – A cessation of hostilities not only against Iran but also against the entire resistance front, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied forces across the region.
None of these demands is unreasonable or impractical. They are the basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, and subjected to economic warfare for nearly half a century. What Iran is asking for is not special treatment but justice.
The American non-offer: Irrelevant demands and nuclear obsession
In stark contrast to Iran’s focused, reasonable and practically sound proposal, the American counteroffer reads like a wish list written by someone who has lost sight of reality.
Washington’s plan has nothing to do with ending the war. Instead, it resurrects the long-dead nuclear file – demands that were irrelevant before the war and are absurd now.
The United States insists on:
Closure of Iran’s nuclear sites – A non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.
- Long-term halt to enrichment – Effectively disabling Iran’s nuclear program for years to come, which is totally unacceptable to Iran.
- Transfer of enriched uranium to America – A humiliating demand that no sovereign nation would accept, least of all Iran.
What is striking about the American proposal is what it omits. There is no mention of the American responsibility for starting the war in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.
There is also no acknowledgment of the thousands of Iranian civilians killed in the 40-day aggression. There is no offer of reparations. There is no commitment to withdraw the occupation forces from the region. There is no guarantee against future aggression.
Washington simply pretends the war never happened and pivots back to its failed nuclear fixation to deflect attention from the real issue.
The posture of defeat: Trump’s fake victory pose
Trump rejected Iran’s plan while posing as the victor. But this is pure theater. International experts, military analysts, and even sober voices within Western capitals acknowledge what Trump refuses to admit – the United States lost the asymmetric war against Iran.
Consider the evidence. The US entered this war with ambitious objectives: “regime change,” destruction of Iran’s missile program, dismantling of nuclear facilities, and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz.
None of these objectives has been achieved. Iran’s missile cities remain intact. Its nuclear program continues to make progress. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz has been consolidated. And the Iranian people, far from rising against their government, have poured into the streets by the millions to support the leadership and the armed forces.
Trump’s hallucinatory “victory” exists only in his own press releases. In the real world, the United States has been defeated on every front. And rejecting Iran’s proposal does not change that fact – it only prolongs Washington’s agony.
The three-way crossroads: All paths lead to disaster
By rejecting Iran’s plan, Trump has trapped the United States in a deadly strategic dilemma. He now faces three options and none of them are good:
- Resume full-scale war
This is the most dangerous path. Starting the war again would plunge the United States and its Israeli proxy into a “dark corridor” from which there may be no return.
Iran has not yet deployed all its strategic cards. Throughout the 40 days of war, Tehran fought with its eyes fixed on the possibility of an even larger confrontation. The weapons systems, tactics, and capabilities that Iran deliberately held back would be unleashed in a second round, if that actually happens.
The result would likely be far heavier defeats for the US-Israeli war machine, defeats that could become irreversible. Iran’s unrevealed cards, combined with the lessons learned from the first phase of the war, would make any renewed American military campaign a gamble with catastrophic odds.
- Accept Iran’s terms
This is the only path to ending the imposed war, but it requires Trump to swallow his pride and acknowledge defeat like someone who understands the ground realities.
The United States would have to pay reparations, accept Iran’s complete and sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz, lift illegal sanctions, release frozen assets, and agree to a comprehensive end to the war on all fronts.
For a president who has built his political identity around “maximum pressure” and “America First,” this option is politically toxic. But rejecting it does not make it disappear. It remains the only sustainable exit from a war that Washington cannot win.
Continue the naval blockade
An ambiguous, indefinite naval blockade that neither ends the war nor escalates it decisively is the current situation. But this option is also unsustainable. Iran’s top military command has already made its position clear that for every vessel intercepted or attacked, American centers and American vessels will be struck.
The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has announced this equation publicly. It is not a threat but a binding warning. The continuation of the naval blockade will trigger Iranian responses that escalate incrementally but inevitably. There is no “safe” stalemate.
The economic dimension: A losing battle for Washington
The closure of the strategic waterway due to the war imposed on war and US maritime banditry and piracy has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.
Oil prices have surged past $110 per barrel. Inflationary pressures are mounting across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The continued naval blockade of Iran, coupled with Iranian retaliatory strikes on regional energy infrastructure, will only worsen these trends.
And who bears the blame? Global public opinion increasingly points to Washington. The United States started this war, and the United States rejected a reasonable peace plan.
The United States continues to strangle Iran’s economy while Iranian civilians suffer. The further economic indicators deteriorate, the more pressure will mount on Trump from domestic constituencies and international allies alike.
Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. Continued economic disruption is not a bug in Tehran’s strategy but a feature. Every day the war continues, the United States bleeds economically and reputationally.
Iran’s trap: No escape for the United States
World media have accurately described the current situation as “Iran’s trap” for the United States. It is a trap with no exit and Trump is yet to wrap his head around this reality.
Trump can neither win the war nor end it on acceptable terms. Resuming full-scale war invites catastrophic defeat. Accepting Iran’s proposal requires humiliating capitulation. Maintaining the status quo triggers escalating Iranian retaliation that systematically degrades American interests in the region.
This is the strategic nightmare that Trump has created for himself and his country. He started a war he could not win. He rejected a peace that would have ended it. And now he stands at a deadly three-way crossroads, with every direction leading to danger.
Iran, meanwhile, holds the strategic advantage. Tehran’s proposal remains on the table — reasonable, principled, and rooted in natural rights. But if the US chooses not to accept it, Iran is prepared to continue the war, escalate it, and inflict far heavier costs than anything seen in the first 40 days.
The choice is Washington’s. The consequences will be for Iran to impose. And history will record who acted with wisdom – and who walked willingly into a trap of their own making.
Brookfield wants to revive a South Carolina megaproject failure known as ‘Nukegate.’ Can it succeed where others failed?
What could go wrong?
At V.C. Summer, the first time around, almost everything did.
By the time 2016 rolled around, the original budget had nearly been spent, construction wasn’t even half-finished, and Westinghouse’s relations with key partners had degenerated into finger-pointing, lawsuits and withheld payments
Santee Cooper’s CEO retired. Prosecutors targeted top officials at the companies involved: SCANA’s former CEO was among those sentenced to prison time
Perhaps the biggest wild card dealt to Brookfield is President Trump.
One of the most daunting hurdles for nuclear projects is obtaining financing. Mr. Trump seemingly made that easier: Just days after Santee Cooper announced its partnership with Brookfield, the U.S. government announced that Japan had agreed to provide up to US$332-billion toward building energy infrastructure on American soil; at least US$80-billion had been specifically earmarked for Westinghouse reactors.
Matthew McClearn, The Globe and Mail, May 8, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-brookfield-vc-summer-nuclear-project-south-carolina/
The Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, in a sparsely populated corner of Fairfield County, S.C., is a graveyard for nuclear dreams.
Nearly a decade ago, the termination of construction of its two reactors (known as Units 2 and 3) marked an end to hopes of a rejuvenation of American nuclear energy. It bankrupted storied companies. It spawned lawsuits and sent executives to prison. It’s been called the biggest business failure in South Carolina’s history – or just “Nukegate.”
Since workers abruptly departed in 2017, new tenants, including vultures and Canada geese have taken up residence. So far this year, the plant’s owner, Santee Cooper, has identified 14 osprey nests, some atop utility poles. Especially when nesting, the ospreys have “no sense of humour at all,” said Steve Nance, the company’s director of nuclear production and development. With wingspans of about a metre, they’ve been known to attack people and drones.
“They’re extremely territorial,” he said. “If you get close to the light pole, she’ll take off. You’ve got about five minutes before you’re going to get a visit.”
Nonetheless, people are returning to V.C. Summer. Inside a warehouse, roughly 30 workers from nuclear giant Westinghouse Electric Co. have begun reviewing and scanning 5,200 large cardboard boxes of documents. They were generated during construction, which was aborted abruptly in 2017 amid massive delays and cost overruns. Studying them is part of an effort to assess what’s necessary to finish the job.
Eight years after its purchase of Westinghouse, the Brookfield BN-T -1.65%decrease empire (which is now based in New York, but has Canadian roots) stands to reap a huge windfallthat would validate its nuclear gambit.
Santee Cooper, the state-owned utility, selected Brookfield Asset Management as its preferred buyer for the incomplete units. This opportunity squares well with U.S. President Donald Trump’s ambition to reinvigorate the American nuclear sector, and he has publicly identified Westinghouse reactors as a preferred choice for construction.
What could go wrong?
At V.C. Summer, the first time around, almost everything did. Now, Brookfield must deliver what the U.S. nuclear industry’s best and brightest could not, even as it enters business arrangements that bind it more closely with the capricious Trump administration. Its reputation as a shrewd risk manager, built over many decades, is about to undergo what could be its most formidable test.
Brookfield’s nuclear gambit
Located less than an hour’s drive northwest of Columbia, South Carolina’s capital, the Units 2 and 3 construction site sprawls over more than 1,000 hectares. Located roughly a kilometre away, the original unit has generated power since the 1980s.
Each of the two units features a large cylindrical structure that would have housed an AP1000 reactor, Westinghouse’s flagship product. Inside Unit 2’s cavernous, roofless structure, the reactor vessel is already concealed by concrete. Those permitted to visit the site can stand inside a tank designed to store 2.4 million litres of water, which would be released into the reactor by an explosive valve during a dire emergency. The silence is punctuated by the sound of dripping water and the occasional indignant, whistling cry of an angry osprey overhead.
Nearby, a larger, skeletal rectangular structure houses steam turbines and other equipment. Inside Unit 2’s turbine building rest three large Hyundai 9,000-horsepower electric pumps. They’re open to the weather but have been maintained: Santee Cooper spent several million dollars annually on maintenance throughout the plant.
“The guys come and rotate them, change oils and desiccant bags,” Mr. Nance said of the giant pumps.
“They do preventative maintenance on them as if they were in service. And that’s what’s going to keep us from having to replace them.”
Large white storage tents scatter the site. Inside one, Unit 3’s 420-ton reactor pressure vessel rests on its side, covered in a thin layer of rust.
Another tent nearby contains two towering assemblies known as integrated head packages, which would be placed atop the reactor vessels. Each weigh about 360 tons and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
In another tent sit four bright yellow Caterpillar diesel generators, which look brand new. The 500-ton crane used to lift components into place, though disassembled, remains on-site.
Mr. Nance said that under the original contract, Westinghouse and its partners got paid to deliver equipment, whether installed or not. The upshot is that an estimated 85 per cent of components required to finish both units are already there. Inspections thus far offer a favourable prognosis on their condition, he added: “So far, nobody’s found any showstoppers or deal-breakers.”
That’s part of Santee Cooper’s pitch to Brookfield: Whoever else might answer Mr. Trump’s call to construct AP1000s, the V.C. Summer units have a considerable head start.
Brookfield’s journey to commencing what has been dubbed the first privately funded nuclear project in American history was circuitous. In 2017, an opportunity arose when Westinghouse sought protection from its creditors. Brookfield’s private equity unit bought the stricken company for US$4-billion – far less than the cost of a single nuclear reactor.
It was a gamble.
Westinghouse’s roots date from the nuclear age’s earliest days, having designed and supplied the world’s very first commercial pressurized water reactor in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It went on to dominate: Most reactors worldwide are pressurized water reactors, and most of those use Westinghouse technology.
By virtue of that legacy, Westinghouse held more than 1,500 patents. Its intellectual property included the AP1000, among the few reactor designs already certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC. Westinghouse also had talent, employing 11,500.
But Westinghouse’s collapse did great violence to its prestige. Having botched V.C. Summer so completely, it was hard to conceive how it could attract further orders for AP1000s.
Fortunately, there was more to Westinghouse’s business: It was also a major service provider to utilities, earning revenues during regular outages when reactors needed refuelling and maintenance. “We could really see a path to seeing our returns in that part of the business,” said Jennifer Mazin, a Brookfield partner who sits on Westinghouse’s board, at a conference held by CIBC in Toronto in March. (Brookfield declined several interview requests for this story over a period of a few months.)
Sales prospects for AP1000s have improved considerably since then. Last year, Mr. Trump issued a flurry of executive orders, one of which demanded that construction begin on 10 large new reactors on American soil by 2030. Another order initiated a radical restructuring of the NRC aimed at speeding the permitting process. Yet another order called on the Secretary of Energy to prioritize “completing construction of nuclear reactors that was prematurely suspended.”
Jimmy Staton, Santee Cooper’s chief executive, had already been looking for ways to restart construction. Reading that executive order, he said, “we had a pretty good idea” Mr. Trump meant V.C. Summer.
“The government’s very supportive of this,” he added.
Brookfield agreed to buy the two V.C. Summer units on a “as-is, where-is” basis and finish the job. It’ll pay Santee Cooper US$2.7-billion in exchange for a 75-per-cent ownership stake. (Santee Cooper would retain the remaining quarter.) Potential buyers for the electricity include large data companies, or other utilities in South Carolina, Mr. Staton said.
Brookfield must finish assessing the project’s feasibility and report back to Santee Cooper on a proposed schedule for completing construction. Arriving at a decision on whether to proceed is expected to take between 18 and 24 months, and could cost as much as US$200-million. Mr. Staton said that according to early estimates, it could take five to seven years to finish the plant.
Brookfield can still back out. But if it proceeds, it will accept risks that Westinghouse itself has sworn off.
Unmitigated disaster
Westinghouse had long acted largely as a reactor designer, providing crucial plans that others could use to build nuclear plants.
That changed after Japan’s Toshiba Corp. purchased the company in 2006. Two years later, Westinghouse signed an agreement with Santee Cooper and its partners (the most important of which was South Carolina Electric & Gas, or SCE&G) to build V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3, at an estimated cost of about US$9.8-billion. Westinghouse guaranteed completion of the first reactor by April 1, 2016, the second by 2019 – and agreed to substantial penalties if it missed those targets.
It was a risky move for Westinghouse and also for South Carolinians. That’s because SCE&G had persuaded state lawmakers to introduce legislation that would allow it to recover some of its capital costs during construction.
Scott Elliott is a Columbia-based lawyer who practices mainly before the South Carolina Public Service Commission. His client roster includes the South Carolina Energy Users Committee, which represents large industrial power users. Its members were happy to have a nuclear plant, he said, but worried about the legislation’s implications.
“It made it awfully easy for SCE&G, and the utilities in general, to raise rates,” he said.
Those fears were realized after V.C. Summer got off to a bad start. After Westinghouse had already signed the contracts, the NRC demanded changes to the AP1000’s design, leading to early delays. Concrete wasn’t poured until 2013. Unavailability of basic materials such as standard rebar led to further delays.
“There were like five cost overrun proceedings,” Mr. Elliott recalled.
“And they kept going up: $200-million, then $500-million, and the last one was over $1-billion.”
By the time 2016 rolled around, the original budget had nearly been spent, construction wasn’t even half-finished, and Westinghouse’s relations with key partners had degenerated into finger-pointing, lawsuits and withheld payments.
“I don’t think Westinghouse knew what they were doing,” Mr. Elliott said.
Westinghouse faced a dilemma: It could either pony up the additional billions of dollars needed to complete the plant, or bail out and pay massive penalties. Unable to afford either option, it applied for court protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The fallout was ugly for all involved.
Toshiba withdrew from the reactor-building business and took a US$6-billion writeoff. It eventually agreed to pay US$2.2-billion to exit its obligations.
SCE&G’s owner, SCANA Corp., abandoned the project in 2017. Teetering on bankruptcy, SCANA agreed to merge with Dominion Energy Inc. within months.
Santee Cooper’s CEO retired. Prosecutors targeted top officials at the companies involved: SCANA’s former CEO was among those sentenced to prison time.
Worsening matters, V.C. Summer wasn’t Westinghouse’s only failed project. It was simultaneously the main contractor on two nearly identical units under construction at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, just two hours away by road.
Georgia Power teamed up with new partners to complete Vogtle. Its AP1000s started generating power in 2023 and 2024, seven years late. The two units cost nearly US$37-billion, as compared to an original budget of US$14-billion. Vogtle has been dubbed the most expensive power plant ever built.
Take two
One lesson from V.C. Summer and Vogtle is that when building a nuclear power plant, one must select one’s partners carefully.
Read more: Brookfield wants to revive a South Carolina megaproject failure known as ‘Nukegate.’ Can it succeed where others failed?Contracts must be structured such that all parties are motivated to solve problems as they arise – because they inevitably will.
After Chapter 11, Westinghouse vowed to never again assume the huge risks of constructing a nuclear plant. Brookfield has deep experience in power generation generally, and has also worked on complex hydroelectric, real estate and infrastructure projects. But it has never before built a nuclear plant. Can it woo the right partners on the right terms?
This could be tricky.
Experts told The Globe that it will probably need a utility partner that is licensed as a nuclear operator by the NRC.
“Let’s say they build the danged things,” said Mr. Elliott. “State law would require them, if they’re going to sell the electricity, to be a regulated utility.”
For Santee Cooper’s part, Mr. Staton makes it clear he has no intention of assuming more risk or contributing capital to the project. It’s Brookfield’s show.
“I feel like we found the best partner in Brookfield,” he said.
“They have a great balance sheet. Most importantly, though, they are risk managers.”
But Brookfield is not keen to repeat Westinghouse’s mistake of shouldering the bulk of the project’s risks. At the CIBC conference, Ms. Mazin said Brookfield regards creating a “risk-sharing model” among the parties involved as crucial to the project’s success.
“We’re looking at all the components of having off-takers, utility, lenders, governments, partners, share risk,” she said.
Brookfield can further reduce risk by not overpaying for the project. As compared to the US$9-billion that Santee Cooper and its partners reportedly spent on the project, the US$2.7-billion Brookfield has promised to pay might seem like a steal.
Tom Clements, an activist and director of Savannah River Site Watch who intervened for many years before the Public Services Commission concerning the project, doubts rosy assessments of the plant’s condition. His organization monitors energy and nuclear issues, particularly nuclear wastes and plutonium management at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina. He points out that much of the plant’s equipment has been exposed to the elements.
A bigger concern, he added, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must certify that plant equipment meets a high standard known as “nuclear quality.” But NRC inspections ceased after the project was halted.
“The fact that Santee Cooper may have been keeping it in buildings with air temperature and humidity controlled, I don’t know if that’s enough to certify that they’re nuclear qualified – the valves, the pipes, the pumps, the whole bit.”
An additional complication is that some plant components were sold. Mr. Staton confirmed that “small components here and there” had been sold to Vogtle as replacement parts, and Santee Cooper also struck an arrangement to sell plant components to Ukraine, which had been exploring construction of AP1000s.
On the other hand, the AP1000’s design has matured greatly during the last 20 years. Mr. Staton said Vogtle’s completion represents a tremendous advantage: It allows would-be AP1000 builders to learn from previous mistakes, and hire professionals who’ve already built one.
“We’ll be able to bring that kind of experience to the table here in South Carolina,” Mr. Staton said.
To that end, Brookfield announced earlier this month that it had formed a partnership with The Nuclear Company, a startup unveiled in 2023 that has hired dozens of former Vogtle and V.C. Summer veterans (some out of retirement) and markets itself as having been “built on the field of Vogtle.” The two partners will establish a new company specializing in deployment of Westinghouse reactors, including the AP1000 – and Brookfield has selected the new company as project manager to complete the V.C. Summer units.
Moreover, Westinghouse recently submitted an application to the NRC seeking to establish Vogtle Unit 4 as the standard design for future AP1000 deployments.
Uneasy bedfellows
Perhaps the biggest wild card dealt to Brookfield is President Trump.
One of the most daunting hurdles for nuclear projects is obtaining financing. Mr. Trump seemingly made that easier: Just days after Santee Cooper announced its partnership with Brookfield, the U.S. government announced that Japan had agreed to provide up to US$332-billion toward building energy infrastructure on American soil; at least US$80-billion had been specifically earmarked for Westinghouse reactors.
Santee Cooper said the unfinished V.C. Summer units will not qualify for that financing. But that money could springboard new AP1000 constructions. In a conference call late last year, Brookfield Asset Management’s then-president, Connor Teskey, said that funding “positions Brookfield at the centre of a historic build-out of clean baseload power, creating one of the most compelling growth opportunities across our transition platform, and potentially one of the most successful investments in Brookfield’s history.”
But Mr. Clements, of Savannah River Site Watch, noted that in the year since that financing was announced, there haven’t yet been any takers.
“Where are the electric utilities that are in on the deal, saying, ‘We want two of these AP1000s right here’?” Mr. Clements asked.
“They’re all looking at Vogtle and they don’t want to get burned. So who’s going to be first out of the gate?”
Brookfield’s co-owner of Westinghouse, Saskatoon-based uranium miner Cameco Corp., has acknowledged uncertainties about what might come out of Westinghouse’s arrangement with the U.S. government. In a recent filing, it noted that Westinghouse’s financial performance will depend on “the ability of the executive branch of the US government to obtain funding and support for the deployments” – a reminder that it’s not a done deal.
If the U.S. government places a final order of US$80-billion for Westinghouse reactors, it earns the right to 20 per cent of the resulting profits, worth about US$17.5-billion. And if Westinghouse reached a valuation of at least US$30-billion by January, 2029, the government could acquire a 20-per-cent ownership stake in Westinghouse.
Brookfield says that stake would come without governance rights. It regards the U.S. government as an unbeatable partner: that US$30-billion target valuation is more than seven times what Brookfield paid for the company in 2018.
Another perennial challenge for nuclear projects is acquiring permits. But Mr. Trump has quickly retooled the U.S. nuclear industry’s regulatory apparatus with a view of establishing “lasting American dominance.” One of his executive orders argued the NRC’s long licensing processes had brought development of nuclear power in the U.S. to a halt. The NRC had “tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks,” according to Mr. Trump, who ordered it be reorganized; licence applications must henceforth be processed in 18 months or less.
Mr. Clements said that as recently as a few years ago, re-applying for licences for V.C. Summer would have been arduous. But “the way things are going in this country, it may be just a pretty simple process with the NRC,” he conceded.
But if all of this seemingly puts wind in Brookfield’s sails, Mr. Trump’s relations with partners and allies are famously tumultuous. For Brookfield, the price of dissatisfying him are incalculable, but potentially steep.
By some accounts, the Trump administration has already become restless. Citing nine unnamed industry and government sources, Canary Media (an American non-profit news organization covering energy, particularly renewables) reported in March that the administration had begun talks with representatives for two Westinghouse rivals: GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Korea Electric Power Corp. The report asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy felt Westinghouse and Brookfield are moving too slowly.
History suggests nuclear projects require much patience.
Chris Gadomski, lead nuclear energy analyst with BloombergNEF, said that while government policy can help get nuclear plants built, it’s not enough: Utilities, which are typically cautious, must spend large sums and assume great risks.
“I’ve talked to operators of large U.S. fleets about starting 10 large reactors by the end of Trump’s second term. And the response was just laughter – it’s never going to happen.”
Mr. Elliott, the Columbia-based lawyer, said Brookfield was virtually unknown in South Carolina, but completing V.C. Summer could elevate it to heroic status.
“Based on my history with this project, I’ll believe it when I see it.”
‘Effort to Stifle and Intimidate’: Trump DOJ Subpoenas News Outlets Over Iran War Coverage
Trump has said media outlets who circulate what he baselessly calls “false information” should be charged with treason.
By Jake Johnson , CommonDreams, May 12, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/effort-to-stifle-and-intimidate-trump-doj-subpoenas-news-outlets-over-iran-war-coverage
“The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” said the newspaper’s publisher.
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. “Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories,” the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, “Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said ‘treason.’”
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media’s Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane’s crew. The previous month, Trump floated “charges for treason” against journalists he accused of circulating “false information” about the Iran war.
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal’s publisher, said in a statement that “the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering.”
“We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting,” said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to “a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran,” the newspaper reported Monday.
“Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day,” the Journal added. “Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28.”
CNN reported Monday that “in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months.”
“But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being,” CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of “cowardice” for not speaking out against the Trump administration’s brazen assault on press freedom.
“The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything,” Stedman wrote. “Grow a fucking spine!”
Trump’s nuclear message to Iran? Pentagon reveals rare location of missile submarine after rejecting Tehran deal
11 May 26, https://www.ynetnews.com/article/skbelo1kzg
The USS Alaska, one of America’s most secretive nuclear-armed submarines, surfaced in Gibraltar as Trump warned the ceasefire with Iran was on ‘life support’ and dismissed Tehran’s counteroffer as ‘totally unacceptable’.
The Pentagon made an unusually public show of force this week, revealing the location of a U.S. Navy nuclear-armed submarine just a day after President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal to end the war.
The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine arrived Sunday in Gibraltar, the British territory on Spain’s southern coast, the US Sixth Fleet said Monday. Such announcements are rare because the locations of America’s nuclear-armed submarines are usually among the military’s most closely guarded secrets
The Sixth Fleet did not initially identify the submarine by name, but local reports said it was the USS Alaska — one of the largest and most powerful submarines in the US Navy.
“The port visit demonstrates U.S. capability, flexibility and continuing commitment to its NATO allies,” the Sixth Fleet said in a statement. “Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are undetectable launch platforms for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, providing the U.S. with its most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.”
The timing of the visit immediately drew attention. It came after Trump said the US ceasefire with Iran was on “life support” and described it as “unbelievably weak.” On Sunday, he rejected Iran’s counterproposal to end the war, calling it “totally unacceptable.”
Iran’s reported demands included war reparations, recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and an end to US sanctions. Trump’s rejection has raised fears that Washington and Tehran are drifting back toward escalation.
The public disclosure of the submarine’s location appeared to send a clear signal. Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are designed to remain hidden at sea for extended periods, forming the most survivable part of the US nuclear triad. Their mission is deterrence: to guarantee that the United States can respond even if its land-based missiles and bombers are targeted.
The Ohio class includes 14 ballistic missile submarines and four guided-missile submarines. Ballistic missile versions can carry Trident II D5 missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Guided-missile variants can carry more than 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The USS Alaska’s arrival in Gibraltar also carried a diplomatic message. The submarine bypassed the nearby US naval base in Rota, Spain, about 141 kilometers away, and instead docked at the British-controlled territory. British Royal Marines were deployed to receive it, and a 200-meter exclusion zone was set up around the vessel.
The move comes amid strained relations between Washington and Madrid. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has criticized the US war in Iran and reportedly refused to allow the United States to use Spanish bases in Rota and Morón as part of its offensive. Trump responded by threatening to “cut off all trade” with Spain and said he would “probably” remove American troops from the country, where about 3,800 US personnel are stationed.
Spain has objected before to US nuclear submarine stops in Gibraltar. In 2022, Madrid protested after US submarines used services there instead of Rota, arguing that the Spanish base had special protocols for nuclear vessels meant to reduce environmental risk and protect public safety.
The USS Alaska has visited Gibraltar before, including in June 2021. Other Ohio-class submarines, including the USS Florida, USS Rhode Island and USS Georgia, also made stopovers there in 2022.
Authorities have not said how long the Alaska will remain in Gibraltar or what the purpose of the visit is beyond the official US statement about capability, flexibility and commitment to NATO allies.
But the message was hard to miss. As Trump weighs his next move on Iran, the United States has chosen to publicly place one of its most secretive nuclear platforms at the edge of the Mediterranean — close enough to be noticed, rare enough to matter, and powerful enough to remind Tehran what is at stake.
The schism between the Pentagon and the Vatican
In the days that followed, the doors of the Pentagon were closed to “the family” (including the Catholic Church). Only pastors of the Communion of Evangelical Reformed Churches (CREC), the Christian Zionist Church of Pete Hegseth, are now authorized there, for the monthly religious service of the Armies. Also, during the next service, on March 18, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegsteh delivered the homily himself.
He prayed that U.S. troops would inflict “overwhelmingly violent action against those who deserve no mercy… We ask this with bold confidence in the name of Almighty Jesus Christ.
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 9 May 2026
Seen from the outside, we do not perceive the metamorphosis of the United States: in four months, it has changed its political ideology (they are no longer “Jacksonians”), its military doctrine (they no longer apply the “Rumsfled-Cebrowski” strategy), and faith (they no longer believe in the plurality of religions). We are publishing a study on this change which requires us to completely revise our perception of this country.
In January 9, 2026, Pope Leo XIV presented his New Year wishes to foreign ambassadors. He declared in particular: “These days, the weakness of multilateralism on the international level is particularly worrying. Diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all is replaced by diplomacy by force, individuals or groups of allies. War has come back into fashion and warlike fervor is spreading. The principle established after World War II, which prohibited countries from using force to violate other people’s borders, was violated. [1]. We no longer seek peace as a gift and a desirable good in ourselves “in the pursuit of an order willed by God, which implies a more perfect justice between men”, auto_awesome [2] but we seek it by arms, as condition for asserting one’s own domination. This seriously threatens the rule of law which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence. ” [3].
This speech greatly displeased the United States Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. He is a Christian Zionist, member of the Communion of Evangelical Reformed Churches (CREC), the sect of Pastor Douglas Wilson. Since September 30, 2025, he has been reforming the Pentagon, dismissing officers who had been appointed in favor of woke ideology and the rules of “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) [4]. Above all, he questioned the role of “the family”, International Christian Leadership, within the Pentagon itself. This association of military chaplains of all faiths was created in 1935 by the Methodist pastor Abraham Vereide. It had become, after the Second World War, the main justification for the Cold War: the struggle of the armies of the United States, defenders of the Faith, against the atheist communist armies. All the chiefs of staff were part of it until last year, and many politicians, American and allied, frequented it [5]. For 73 years, Pastor Billy Graham was its spokesperson. It was in this capacity that he was the spiritual advisor to twelve presidents of the United States, from Truman to Obama [6]. In France, the President of the Senate, Alain Poher, prayed within this group.
Also, on January 22, the Secretary of War summoned the apostolic nuncio to Washington, the French Cardinal Christophe Pierre. In principle, only foreign ministers can summon the ambassador of the Holy See. This was an exception. The prelate was not received by the secretary, but by his deputy, Elbridge Colby.
It is common knowledge that Pete Hegseth is more concerned with the culture war against the woke movement than with military issues. Elbridge Colby, for his part, is responsible for the strategy of the United States armies. He is a Catholic, grandson of William Colby who was director of the CIA during the Nixon mandate and knight of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Elbridge played a central role during Donald Trump’s first term and wrote a strange book: The Strategy of Denial: American defense in an age of great power conflict [7]. He explains that, to be free, the United States must prevent any other state from becoming more powerful than itself. There he developed a strategy to stop China’s development, not by waging war directly against it, but by waging war against its suppliers of energy and raw materials.
Elbridge Colby explained to His Eminence Christophe Pierre that the Holy See must have known for a long time that the United States is its best allies and that the pope should be more “loyal” (sic). The tone of the discussion escalated and Colby reminded the prelate that when a pope came into conflict with a king of France, the latter had a second pope elected. From 1378 to 1417, two popes, that of the Vatican and that of Avignon, mutually excommunicated each other within the framework of the “great Western schism”. Similarly, when it came to Protestant churches when they were the majority in the United States, his own grandfather, William Colby, launched the International Congress on World Evangelism with Pastor Billy Graham to compete with the World Council of Churches (WCC) which spoke out against the Vietnam War. At the end of the interview, Elbridge Colby manifested the schism, in a gesture of defiance, by placing his pistol on the table.
The scene was recounted in different ways by several news outlets after The Free Press reported on it. [8]. The version that I am giving you was previously explained to me by a collaborator and friend who played a role in the Vatican. April 9, on the occasion of the new apostolic nuncio taking office in Washington, His Eminence Gabriele Caccia, the spokesperson for the Holy See, the British Matteo Bruni, confirmed that this meeting did take place, but did not wish to report on its progress. He just said the media reports were “absolutely false”. For his part, the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Birch, “categorically refu His Eminence ted” the reconstruction of the events presented by The Free Press.
Regardless, the Holy Father canceled his planned trip to the United States.
[10]. Later in the day, his department announced that the number of religions accepted in the armies would no longer be 200 or so, but 31. In addition, military chaplains would no longer wear their rank on their uniform and would instead wear religious insignia [11]. It seems that the Secretary of War wishes on the one hand to refocus the work of chaplains on the propagation of their faith and no longer on the personal problems of their flock [12] and, on the other hand, to gradually impose a particular conception of religion, breaking with current diversity [13]…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The poison of the political instrumentation of religion is spreading. On April 12, 60 Minutes (CBS) broadcast a report in which three US cardinals support Pope Leon XIV’s statements against the war in Iran and President Trump’s anti-migratory policy. President Trump responded the next morning on Truth Social with this declaration of war: Pope Leo XIV is weak on crime, and terrible on foreign policy. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
On April 15, the third religious service of the new system was broadcast on YouTube. The Secretary of War alluded to the heroic rescue operation of a pilot shot down in Iran. In reality, it was an operation aimed at seizing stocks of enriched uranium. The pilot was not saved. He is still a prisoner of the Revolutionary Guards. Never mind. Hegseth cited a prayer from the Sandy 1 team of the combat search and rescue unit. He said, referring to the Book of Ezekiel: The path of the righteous man is assailed on every side by the injustices of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, guides the weak through the valley of darkness………………. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I unleash my vengeance on you. “Alas! the quote does not refer to the Bible, but to the script of the film Pulp Fiction.
………………………………….A few hours later, Leo XIV published on X: “Woe to those who manipulate religions and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political ends, dragging what is sacred into darkness and filth!” [17]………………………………
The “Kulturkampf” has just begun. The “fight for civilization” was a policy of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to sever ties between the German Empire and the Catholic Church. This time, it is a break between the United States and the Holy See, while, due to Mexican immigration, the country’s population is now 40% Catholic [19]. It is also a backlash after Pope Francis’ support for Democratic President Joe Biden [20].
(To be continued…) Translation
Jean-Sébastien La Tour https://www.voltairenet.org/article224466.html
Israel Accuses The New York Times Of Antisemitic Journalism, And Other Notes
Caitlin Johnstone, May 12, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-accuses-the-new-york-times?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=197296942&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Israeli government is currently accusing The New York Times of antisemitic blood libel for publishing a report on Israel’s already well-documented systemic rape of Palestinian prisoners.
Contrary to popular belief, the highest award in journalism is not the Pulitzer. The highest award in all of journalism is being accused of antisemitism by the Israeli government for factual reporting.
But the New York Times is unworthy of this award. The Times has been running cover for the Gaza holocaust from the very beginning with extensively documented biases in its reporting, and played a leading role in promoting the atrocity propaganda about mass rapes on October 7. Israel’s abuses were actively facilitated by the New York Times, including its systemic sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners.
The Times didn’t even run the report as a news story; they put it in the “opinion” section. You can see their bias on its surface by the fact that they ran their notoriously discredited “Screams Without Words” piece as a hard news story.
Non-western and non-mainstream media sources have been covering the facts about Israeli sexual abuse for years. Human rights groups have been warning about the systemic rape of Palestinian prisoners since long before the onslaught in Gaza began. The only reason we’re hearing about it from the mainstream press now is because they got the destruction of Gaza they were seeking, and now the crosshairs of the war machine have moved on to places like Lebanon and Iran.
The New York Times does not deserve credit for its too-little, too-late, ass-covering reporting, and it does not deserve the honor of being accused of blood libel by the Israeli government. It deserves nothing but scorn and derision for failing to cover this completely unhidden story until May 2026.
There’s orders of magnitude more evidence for the systemic rape of Palestinian prisoners than there ever was for mass rapes on October 7, and there always has been. Anyone who claims otherwise is a hasbarist.
❖
It’s downright poetic all the different words that Reuters editors can find to avoid saying Israel violated a ceasefire.
A Reuters headline from May 10 reads “Israeli strikes kill three people in Gaza, medics say, testing fragile ceasefire”.
One from May 7 reads, “Israel strikes Beirut for the first time since the ceasefire”
April 27: “Israeli strikes hit east Lebanon, expanding scope despite ceasefire”
April 22: “Attacks in south Lebanon strain ceasefire on eve of Washington talks”
It’s such a trip how all these dusty old newsroom liches who’ve never created an ounce of art in their lives can spontaneously transform into wildly creative wordsmiths when they need to run cover for Israeli abuses.
Speaking of headlines, The New York Times recently altered the title of an article by House Democrats Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan L. Jackson about their visit to Cuba, wording it to remove blame from the United States for the suffering created by the US blockade on the island. The original headline read “What We’re Doing to Cuba Isn’t Just Unlawful. It’s Cruel.” New York Times editors changed it to “What We Saw in Cuba Shocked Us”. They deliberately shifted it to a passive-voice observation without a named perpetrator.
Speaking of headlines, The New York Times recently altered the title of an article by House Democrats Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan L. Jackson about their visit to Cuba, wording it to remove blame from the United States for the suffering created by the US blockade on the island. The original headline read “What We’re Doing to Cuba Isn’t Just Unlawful. It’s Cruel.” New York Times editors changed it to “What We Saw in Cuba Shocked Us”. They deliberately shifted it to a passive-voice observation without a named perpetrator.
One of the silliest contradictions in the Zionist narrative is that it is simultaneously (A) antisemitic to criticize Israel and (B) antisemitic to conflate Israel with all Jews.
Zionists will officially claim that it is possible to criticize Israel without being antisemitic, but that’s not actually their position in practice. We know this because there is not a single vocal and forceful critic of Israel who isn’t regularly accused of antisemitism by Zionists. Not one. They might let you get away with a rare timid critique of individual Israeli officials, but consistently and vocally criticizing the apartheid state of Israel itself (and your own government’s alliances with it) is strictly forbidden.
When you consistently slam literally all of Israel’s critics as antisemites, you are communicating that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, and that Israel therefore represents all Jews. You are therefore necessarily doing the very thing you decry as antisemitic.
Are Trump’s nuclear plans illegal?
“Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety,” said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear. “The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda. Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn’t have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them.”
May 11, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/are-trumps-nuclear-plans-illegal/
13 organizations, including Beyond Nuclear and Nuclear Information & Resource Service, have filed comments to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, suggesting Trump’s nuclear “orders” may violate long-standing legislation
The so-called “Rubber-Stamp Rule”, an effort by the Trump administration to “Make America Nuclear Again”, violates key components of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and Energy Reorganization Act, according to comments filed this week by 13 organizations including the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and Beyond Nuclear. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) proposed rule will allow reactor designs that the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) have approved to bypass required safety reviews by the NRC.
In a separate comment filing in March, 11 state attorneys general concurred with the organizations’ findings that the Department of Energy ‘s new policy to exclude “pilot reactors” from both NRC licensing and environmental reviews violates existing law. In that case, the Department of Energy announced, in violation of federal law, that it would exempt previously untested reactors that it approves to be built and operated from any review of their environmental impacts.
“Along with the DOE’s environmental ‘free pass’ policy, the whole ‘expedited licensing’ regime the administration is attempting to set up appears to be illegal,” said Tim Judson, executive director of NIRS and co-author of comments filed to the NRC. “The White House is trying to create a ‘regulatory tunnel’ around NRC’s safety regulations. That would mean DOE’s biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers to our health and safety.”
The NRC’s proposed regulation would allow companies that want to build a nuclear reactor of the same design as one DOE has previously approved to merely submit documentation of that approval and claim that the previously built reactor “is safe.” Such companies would likely never have to go through a detailed safety review by NRC to build and operate such reactors. In 1974, Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to prohibit such a scheme.
“Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety,” said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear. “The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda. Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn’t have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them.”
The groups also told NRC that it cannot simply “rubber-stamp” reactors that the military builds, either. “And while the law allows the DOD to build its own nuclear reactors,” said Tim Judson of NIRS, “it does not allow the NRC to skip safety reviews for civilian nuclear plants just because they use the same designs. The military routinely exposes its personnel to dangers that civilians are supposed to be protected from.”
“In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best – demonstrating a complete disregard for the law,” said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear. “But nuclear technology is too inherently dangerous to operate as an outlaw. Ignoring those dangers will put millions of Americans at risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident.”
- NIRS, BN, et al comments on NRC Proposed Rule — https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/DocketID_NRC-2025-1503_Comments_-BeyondNuclear-NIRS-etal.pdf
- Comments on DOE Categorical Exclusion Policy — https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026.03.04-NIRS-et-al-Comments-re-DOE-categorical-exclusion-for-advanced-nuclear-reactors.pdf
Will Trump’s failed Iran war provoke his break from Netanyahu’s ironclad grip?
10 May 2026 AIMN Editorial – Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/will-trumps-failed-iran-war-provoke-his-break-from-netanyahus-ironclad-grip/
On Iran war day 71 it’s clear Trump has not only lost his war, he’s blundered the world into a looming economic catastrophe. As horrendous as that is, it wasn’t even Trump’s idea. Trump was simply following orders from his real boss, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On February 11, Netanyahu arrived at the White House with Mossad Director David Barnea. They encouraged – if not demanded – invasion. The Netanyahu-Barnea tag team argued Iran would collapse within a couple of days from a combination of assassinating Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei, massive bombing, Mossad-fomented civil unrest and ground incursions by Kurdish fighters.
That couple of days has morphed into 71 days of arguably the greatest military disaster in US history. Instead of collapsing within a couple of days, Iran retaliated against the massive US, Israeli bombing onslaught with their own. Result? All 13 US bases in the neighboring Gulf States are damaged or destroyed. Gulf States infrastructure has suffered massive damage. So has Israel, suffering its worst bombing in its 78 years.
Worst of all, Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, choking off a fifth of world oil supply which may cause a worldwide recession, if not depression. The Netanyahu-Barnea presentation was a blizzard of lies Trump swallowed whole in spite of Intelligence assessments to the contrary.
As the world careens toward economic catastrophe, Trump is completely out of options to achieve any of his war goals. Check that. Friday he alluded to striking Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump told reporters on whether the ceasefire if off: “If there’s no ceasefire you’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.”
Assuming he either doesn’t order nuclear strikes, or his military commanders disobey this directive to do so, Trump is facing the worst military defeat in America’s 250 years, all brought on by his fealty to Benjamin Netanyahu. What motivated Trump’s caving to the Israeli Prime Minister? Was it the hundreds of millions in campaign cash showered upon Trump and his Republican Congress? Was it the ‘Epstein Button’, damaging evidence related to the Epstein pedophile enterprise that Trump dare not risk being exposed? Is Trump simply an ardent Zionist believing that any Israeli murder and mayhem to further Israeli expansion and Middle East dominance is worthy of Trump’s enabling?
While we’ll likely never know, Trump must be contemplating the enormity of the disaster he’s inflicted on the Middle East, and very soon the US and entire world. The one benefit that may result from Trump’s immoral, criminal war is he may be rethinking his special relationship with the man who brought on the greatest calamity of his life, Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump needs to truly become the peace president he campaigned to be in 2016. He can do that by quitting his senseless and lost Iran war. He needs to jettison his subservience to Netanyahu’s vision of Greater Israel. He needs to cut off all US military aid to Israel till Netanyahu or his successor end the genocide in Gaza, near genocide in Lebanon and quest to destroy its hegemonic rival, Iran.
If Trump refuses to do the right thing, events on the battlefield and the world economy may push Trump aside and hopefully implement that peace initiative without him.
Christiane Amanpour Lays Out Her Fear for CNN With Blistering Attack on David Ellison’s CBS ‘Realignment’
David Gilmour, May 6th, 2026, https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/christiane-amanpour-lays-out-her-fear-for-cnn-with-blistering-attack-on-david-ellisons-cbs-realignment/
Veteran CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour pointed to the “ideological realignment” at CBS News on Wednesday as she expressed her “concern” at what her own network might look like under the oversight of incoming owner David Ellison.
Speaking in London at the Truth Tellers Sir Harry Evans Investigative Journalism Summit on Wednesday, Amanpour voiced “concern” over Ellison’s influence on CBS News and what it potentially meant for CNN as his Paramount Skydance acquisition of the network’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, moves forward.
The deal would place Ellison, the son of Oracle co-founder and Trump donor Larry Ellison, in control of the network where Amanpour has worked since 1983, alongside CBS News, which has already undergone sweeping changes under Paramount and Skydance leadership.
“[Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth, the world’s favorite frat boy supremo, has said that the sooner David Ellison owns CNN, the better. And CNN has become this sort of lightning rod, hasn’t it, for this administration?” asked moderator Emily Maitlis, as the topic of corporate ownership takeover came up. “Does it change what you do? Do you fear what is coming at you now in terms of a change?”
“Clearly I’m concerned, and I’m not sure how much I’m allowed to say about a corporate thing that’s underway, but I am, obviously, as a person, as a journalist with a record, concerned,” Amanpour said. “And I’m concerned based on what’s happened to the other things that he’s taken over already like CBS News right? I mean, do I have to list what’s happening there?”
Amanpour then delivered a blistering takedown of the CBS News under Ellison’s leadership.
“I mean hemorrhaging viewers, probably hemorrhaging money, this ideological realignment of CBS and the destruction potentially of 60 Minutes,” she said.
In a passionate case for 60 Minutes, she praised the show as “one of literally the legacy” programs in American television journalism, adding: “Nobody can match 60 Minutes for a brilliant television magazine show that’s been doing hard news and cultural news, and for decades and decades.”
The comments come amid mounting scrutiny over the future editorial direction of major news outlets as billionaire-backed consolidation reshapes the media landscape.
Amanpour suggested staff at CNN were anxious about preserving newsroom autonomy under new ownership.
“I would like to think that we would have the very basic, which is editorial independence, I’m hoping for that,” she said. “I know many of us at CNN are incredibly – including leadership – are very, very committed to that clearly.”
Press groups demand records on potentially corrupt Paramount acquisitions
May 7, 2026 / Freedom of the Press Foundation, https://freedom.press/issues/press-groups-demand-records-on-potentially-corrupt-paramount-acquisitions/
New York, May 7, 2026 — Today, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Reporters Without Borders, Inc. demanded records from Paramount Skydance Corp. regarding potentially corrupt acquisitions and deals that could result in relinquishing editorial control of major news outlets to the Trump administration. Public reports suggest that David Ellison and his father Larry may have tried to secure regulatory approval to acquire Paramount and now Warner Bros. Discovery by, among other things:
- Making a “side deal” to settle President Trump’s spurious lawsuit against “60 Minutes” by providing $15 million to $20 million worth of free advertising.
- Installing a pro-Trump GOP donor without journalism experience as “ombudsman” at CBS News to evaluate complaints of “bias” and to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
- Promising to make “sweeping” changes to CNN, and to potentially fire anchors and commentators whom Trump dislikes.
Since Paramount Skydance announced its most consequential Trump-friendly changes at CBS News in October — acquiring The Free Press and appointing Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief — the company’s market capitalization has decreased by 40%, wiping out more than $8 billion in shareholder value. Ratings for key programs, like “CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil,” have also dropped precipitously. Freedom of the Press Foundation and Reporters Without Borders, which are both shareholders in Paramount Skydance Corp., are entitled to inspect the company’s books and records related to these developments under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
“Shareholders are entitled to know when the government uses its leverage over corporate transactions as a backdoor to meddle in editorial decisions that the First Amendment leaves to the press,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation. “Larry and David Ellison’s capitulation not only harms the public and our democracy, it hurts Paramount by producing news shows people don’t want to watch and tanking the reputations of news outlets in order to appease Trump. If the Ellisons can’t stand up to their friends in the administration and defend the First Amendment, they should stay away from the news business.”
“We need to know what the Ellisons may have promised the president to secure these deals,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders, Inc. “This acquisition has all the warning signs of a political capture. The American public deserves to know whether the Ellisons are sacrificing editorial independence to appease Donald Trump and secure regulatory approval from an administration that is openly hostile to press freedom.”
“Our clients are entitled to the same records as any other shareholder in Paramount, and legally, the company must comply,” said Brendan Ballou, CEO of the Public Integrity Project. “If Paramount fails to do so, we are prepared to vindicate our clients’ rights in court.”
Under Delaware law, Paramount has five business days to respond to the shareholders’ request. Freedom of the Press Foundation and Reporters Without Borders are being represented by the Public Integrity Project and Ron Poliquin of The Poliquin Firm.
Please email Seth Stern (seth@freedom.press) for any follow-up questions or inquiries.
1 This Month
1 June Webinar – The High Cost of Nuclear Power – Register
6 June – WEBINAR- Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (27)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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 