nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

As Trump Uses Military to Threaten Democracy, NYT Declares Military Needs More Resources.

In 2024, the US spent $997 billion on its military—more than the next nine countries’ spending combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a fact the Times (12/10/25) acknowledged. What it didn’t state was that China—the second-biggest military spender—spent only $314 billion in 2024. Why must the US spend even more than three times more on its military than China? The Times never addressed this obvious question.

Drew Favakeh, FAIR, January 23, 2026

The New York Times published a seven-day series of editorials (12/8/25–12/14/25) meant to examine, as the initial piece put it, “what’s gone wrong with the US military” and “how we can create a relevant and effective force that can deter wars whenever possible and win them wherever necessary.”

These editorials serve as little more than propagandistic, jingoistic and Sinophobic tools that treat war as a game, turning a blind eye to the very real harms that wars have on civilians.

Devoting seven editorials to boosting the US military when the country’s own democracy is under threat—and Trump is using the military so irresponsibly and illegally that high-level officers are resigning—the Times demonstrated that its commitment to militarism knows few bounds.

‘Threaten democracies everywhere’

In total, the New York Times series referenced China 50 times, Russia 26 times and Israel just twice. It fed into an increasing Yellow Peril hysteria in a country that has a long history of hatred towards China and Chinese people, and from a news outlet that has repeatedly expressed anti-China sentiment.

The Times (12/8/25) kicked off the series by citing a Pentagon “classified, multiyear assessment,” called the “Overmatch brief,” which “catalogs China’s ability to destroy American fighter planes, large ships and satellites, and identifies the US military’s supply chain choke points.” The paper—which didn’t disclose how it obtained the brief, and didn’t publish its contents—called it “consistent and disturbing.”

The editorial opined that a “rising China” will “outlast this administration,” and will “require credible US military power as a backstop to international order and the security of the free world.”

…………………………………….It’s not China, though, that is threatening to annex its neighbors—by force if need be—or declaring it has the right to replace the leaders of any country in its hemisphere it disapproves of.

The US has overthrown at least 31 foreign governments since the late 19th century—with Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro marking only the latest in that long string—and conducted more than 80 election meddling operations from 1946 to 2000 (NPR12/22/16). It has caused, conservatively, nearly a million deaths in the post-9/11 wars. By comparison, China has not been directly involved in a major external conflict since its 1979 invasion of Vietnam.

US special operations forces are deployed to 154 countries (Intercept3/20/21), and the Pentagon has at least 750 overseas military bases in 80 countries (Al Jazeera9/10/21), many of which surround China.

China, meanwhile, has just two overseas military bases, one it opened in 2017 in the East African nation of Djibouti (Reuters8/1/17Foreign Policy7/7/21) and another it opened in 2025 in Cambodia (Newsweek4/7/25).

Moreover, the US currently has imposed some form of damaging economic sanctions on more than 20 countries, while China has issued no nationwide sanctions.

…………………………………………………………. While the US declares a right to use nuclear weapons first in a war (Council on Foreign Relations, 12/16/25), China has maintained a “no first use policy” since it first developed nuclear weapons in 1964—a position it has repeatedly re-affirmed, including late last year (Arms Control Association, 12/11/25).

The Times also warned about hypersonic missiles: “China in recent years has amassed an arsenal of around 600 hypersonic weapons,” compared to the US, which “has yet to deploy a single hypersonic missile,” wrote the Times (12/8/25). FAIR (7/12/19) has written before about media attempts to hype a hypersonic missile gap.

In fact, the US has pursued hypersonic weapons since 9/11, and is now among those “leading the pack” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists3/12/24), underscored by Trump’s near $4 billion request in 2026 for hypersonic weapons research. Most US hypersonic weapons are being designed for conventional payloads—making them usable weapons rather than deterrents. This means they will take longer to deploy (Congressional Research Service, 8/27/25), and will be more destabilizing if they are deployed.

………………………………….The Times‘ enthusiasm for defending Taiwan from forcible reunification with China contrasts sharply with its commitment to supporting Ukraine in its efforts to retake breakaway territories. In the Taiwanese case, the right to self-determination is unquestioned, trumping China’s sovereignty; in Ukraine’s case, the sacredness of national borders renders self-determination claims irrelevant.

Though popularity of a war hardly seems to matter to US administrations, intervening to protect Taiwan separatism remains largely unpopular among US citizens (although more are in favor of intervention this year than last).

‘Transformation of the American military’

US politicians often leverage the alarmist message of “imminent military threats” to increase military spending (Defense News2/17/21). The New York Times took on that role in these editorials. To achieve this country’s foreign policy goals, it argued (12/8/25), requires not just maintaining current obscene levels of military spending, but increasing them: “In the short term, the transformation of the American military may require additional spending, primarily to rebuild our industrial base.”

In 2024, the US spent $997 billion on its military—more than the next nine countries’ spending combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a fact the Times (12/10/25) acknowledged. What it didn’t state was that China—the second-biggest military spender—spent only $314 billion in 2024. Why must the US spend even more than three times more on its military than China? The Times never addressed this obvious question.

While the paper occasionally criticized military spending—calling the 2026 defense budget “loaded with pork for unnecessary programs” (12/11/25)—its issue wasn’t the amount spent, but rather how it was spent—“a stronger US national security depends less on enormous new budgets than on wiser investments” (12/8/25).

Ultimately, the Times (12/11/25) suggested spending $150 billion more on “manufacturing capacity” to rebuild the US naval industrial base, despite noting that the US has already spent nearly $6 billion on the industry over the past decade.

The editorial board didn’t seem to consider what the public wants in our nominal democracy: Only one in ten voters want a bigger military budget (Jacobin12/15/25).

Rather than funding an arms race, the US could focus more on diplomacy and turn its investments towards more popular measures like government-subsidized housinghealthcare for all, universal childhood education, infrastructure, clean energy, and/or community college. A 2023 report published by Brown University’s Costs of War project showed reducing military spending and diverting funds to these areas would create 9% to 250% more jobs than the military.

The killer robot gap

Another area where the New York Times wants the US military to spend more money is autonomous weapons systems.

The Times (12/9/25) wrote that “China is testing how to fly drones in sync. Soon such swarms could hunt and kill on their own.” To counter this “growing threat,” the US “must simultaneously win the race to build autonomous weapons and lead the world in controlling them.” To do so, “Congress needs to expand funding for research and development into technologies with military applications” and Trump needs to “bring private industry into the mission.”

The Times wrote that they “join the United Nations secretary general and the International Committee of the Red Cross in their call for a new treaty to be concluded by 2026 on autonomous weapons systems.” The editors then say the treaty should include

limits on the types of targets, such as outlawing their use in situations where civilians or civilian objects are present; and requirements for human-machine interaction, notably to ensure effective human supervision, and timely intervention and deactivation.

But that’s far short of what the secretary general and the Red Cross recommend: a ban on all autonomous weapons used to attack humans. This humanitarian goal doesn’t square with the Times‘ enthusiasm for the US to “win the race to build autonomous weapons,” even if it says it also wants to “win the race to control them.”

Then again, there’s nothing about the Times‘ editorial series that suggests any honest consideration of humanitarian concerns—just adding another notch on its belt of warmongering on behalf of the State. https://fair.org/home/as-trump-uses-military-to-threaten-democracy-nyt-declares-military-needs-more-resources/

January 25, 2026 Posted by | media, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump offers states a deal to take nuclear waste

POLITICIPRO, By: Sophia Cai | 01/20/2026 

The Trump administration wants to quadruple America’s production of nuclear power over the next 25 years and is hoping to entice states to take the nuclear waste those plants produce by dangling the promise of steering massive investments their way.

President Donald Trump’s big bet on amping up nuclear production is not an easy feat, fraught with NIMBY concerns about safety and waste byproducts. The administration hopes to solve at least one of those issues — what to do with toxic nuclear waste — with a program they plan to roll out this week.

Governors would effectively be invited to compete for what the administration believes is a once-in-a-generation economic development prize in exchange for hosting the nation’s most politically and environmentally toxic byproduct.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has already begun laying groundwork with governors. Over the last two weeks, Wright has met with at least two governors who have expressed interest, according to two officials familiar with the private meetings granted anonymity to discuss them……………………………….(Subscribers only) https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/01/trump-offers-states-a-deal-to-take-nuclear-waste-00738104

January 25, 2026 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump Could Offer Deals to U.S. States to Store Nuclear Waste

Oil Price, By Charles Kennedy – Jan 22, 2026, 

The Trump Administration plans to offer U.S. states incentives for building nuclear reactors in exchange for agreeing to store nuclear waste, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

However, a spokesperson for the U.S. Energy Department told Reuters that the story was “false” and that “no decisions have been made at this time,” after POLITICO first reported on the plan late on Wednesday. 

The POLITICO report said that the Energy Department could invite interest from U.S. states as early as this week. 

Handling nuclear waste is a politically and environmentally sensitive issue, and the U.S. may have much more of that in the coming years as it the Trump Administration plans to facilitate the expansion of U.S. nuclear energy capacity from about 100 gigawatts (GW) in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050. 

The U.S. Administration has bet big on nuclear power, alongside gas, to meet the expected surge in America’s electricity demand driven by AI, data centers, and the onshoring of manufacturing………….

Earlier this month, the Energy Department announced a $2.7 billion investment to strengthen domestic enrichment, in support of President Trump’s commitment to expand U.S. capacity for low-enriched uranium (LEU) and jumpstart new supply chains and innovations for high-assay low-enriched uranium. 

Last month, the Energy Department awarded $800 million to TVA and Holtec to advance the deployment of U.S. small modular reactors.

In November, DOE extended a $1-billion loan to help Constellation Energy restart the Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear reactor to add baseload power to the grid and help the AI advancement in the United States. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Trump-Could-Offer-Deals-to-US-States-to-Store-Nuclear-Waste.html

January 25, 2026 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Today in History – January 24: Pure luck stops two nuclear bombs destroying US city

By Nick Pearson, Jan 24, 2026, https://www.9news.com.au/world/today-in-history-january-24-what-happened-on-this-day/67dc0e76-b5a5-4799-8fd0-ef2c401b7812

Two concurrent nuclear explosions over a US town were narrowly averted on January 24, 1961.

A B-52 bomber flying over Goldsboro, North Carolina, started to break up in mid-air after a fuel leak.

The centrifugal forces set off a trigger in the cockpit which would be used to drop the payload in the back of the plane.

That payload was two hydrogen bombs, which dropped out of the plane as it broke up in the sky.

Five of the eight crew were able to bail out safely, but three were killed.

Meanwhile, the two hydrogen bombs fell to the ground.

By pure luck, neither of the weapons exploded.

The first weapon had landed in a field on a farm, landing reasonably softly because of its deployed parachute.

With one of the 24-megaton warheads, there were six interlocking safety mechanisms which needed to be triggered for the bomb to explode.

“When Air Force experts rushed to the North Carolina farm to examine the weapon after the accident, they found that five of the six interlocks had been set off by the fall,” nuclear safety supervisor Parker F. Jones wrote in a 1969 report.

“Only a single switch prevented the 24-megaton bomb from detonating and spreading fire and destruction over a wide area.”

The second bomb landed in a muddy field, leaving a 1.5m hole in the ground.

When it was recovered after a three-day operation, they found the safety switch had been turned to “Armed”.

It created a mystery as to why this bomb did not detonate.

The conclusion from investigators was that the impact from hitting the earth shifted the switch to “Armed”, but that same impact had broken the circuits that would have set the bomb off.

After breaking up on impact and sinking into deep mud, some major components of the bomb have still not been recovered.

If either bomb had detonated, it would have likely wiped out a city of about 30,000 people.

The farmer was paid $100 by the US government for a 61m-radius section of the farm. 

They are still allowed to use the land for agricultural purposes but forbidden from digging more than five feet down.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | incidents, USA | Leave a comment

Kushner Reveals Dystopic Plan to Build Data Centers on Ruins of Gaza Genocide.

“This is a plan to erase Gaza’s indigenous character, turn what remains of her people into a cheap labor force to manage their ‘industrial zones’ and create an exclusive coastline for ‘tourism,’”

The plan appears to be to finish Israel’s bulldozing of Gaza to make real estate opportunities for investors.

“This is a plan to erase Gaza’s indigenous character, turn what remains of her people into a cheap labor force to manage their ‘industrial zones’ and create an exclusive coastline for ‘tourism,’” 

The plan appears to be to finish Israel’s bulldozing of Gaza to make real estate opportunities for investors.

By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, January 22, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/kushner-reveals-dystopic-plan-to-build-data-centers-on-ruins-of-gaza-genocide/

White House Adviser Jared Kushner revealed a neocolonial plan to transform Gaza into a home for luxury tourist resorts and data centers at the World Economic Forum on Thursday.

The plan has been widely condemned by human rights advocates, who say it is an an attempt to erase Palestinians by building a capitalist dystopia on the ruins of Israel’s genocide.

At the signing ceremony for President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” Kushner shared a set of slides depicting a colonialist fantasy of the Gaza Strip under a hypothetical “demilitarization” of Hamas — despite the group’s repeated refusal to disarm, saying it would leave them defenseless against further attacks by Israel or otherwise.

The slides show computer-generated photos of high rise buildings along the coast and rows of residential buildings elsewhere.

The presentation includes a blueprint of Gaza divided into sections, which Kushner says is the U.S.’s plan for “catastrophic success” in the event of demilitarization of Hamas. The blueprint, labelled as the “Master Plan,” shows the entirety of the coast — where Palestinians have long fished for sustenance — dedicated to “coastal tourism,” with a sea port and an airport. There are large swaths dedicated to “parks, agriculture, and sports facilities.”

Tellingly, numerous parts of the map located next to residential areas are dedicated to industry and “data centers.” Ruinous technology like AI, reports have said, are slated to be a major part of the White House’s plan for Gaza, with other slides in the pitch deck reported by The Wall Street Journal showing a transformation of the Strip into a “smart city” with “tech driven governance.”

Nowhere is there a designation for cultural sites, nor does the map seem to be built around keeping or restoring any parts of Gaza that retain Palestinian heritage or life. The plan appears to be to finish Israel’s razing of the territory, clear the rubble in which thousands of Palestinians’ bodies are thought to be trapped, and replace it with real estate opportunities for investors.

“Gaza, as President Trump has been saying, has amazing potential,” said Kushner.

At the signing ceremony, Trump said that Gaza, home to millions of Palestinians, is “a great location” that should be viewed as a “big real estate site,” and expressed his interest in the region as a “real estate person at heart.”

“I said, look at this location on the sea, look at this beautiful piece of property — what it could be for so many people, it’ll be so great, people that are living so poorly are gonna be living so well,” Trump said.

Kushner touted the White House’s goal of applying “free market economy principles” to the razing and redevelopment of Gaza. He also expressed a desire to replace the humanitarian aid system for Palestinians in the region using those principles.

Palestinians have strongly condemned the plan.

“This is a plan to erase Gaza’s indigenous character, turn what remains of her people into a cheap labor force to manage their ‘industrial zones’ and create an exclusive coastline for ‘tourism,’” wrote Palestinian American writer Susan Abulhawa. “Palestinians will be pushed behind walls and gates, retrained in ‘technical schools’ to serve Israel’s supremacists ideology. The indigenous traditions and social fabric of this land will be obliterated utterly.”

“If the goal is truly peace, then the path is simple: end the occupation and help restore the rights that have been taken from Palestinians since 1948,” said Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer from Gaza. “We, the Palestinian people, are the ones who must determine our own future. Peace cannot be imposed while our land is occupied, our lives controlled, and our voices ignored.”

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Danish MP Warns US Takeover of Greenland Will Start a War

 by Kyle Anzalone , January 21, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/20/danish-mp-warns-us-takeover-of-greenland-will-start-a-war/

Trump has placed tariffs on Europeans nations that oppose the US seizing Greenland

Amid threats from President Donald Trump to take over Greenland, a Danish politician said that if the US seized the colony, a war would break out. 

Danish MP Rasmus Jarlov said that if the US military invades Greenland, “it would be a war, and we would be fighting against each other.” 

“There’s no threat, there’s no hostility. There’s no need, because the Americans already have access to Greenland, both militarily and in all other ways.” He continued, “There are no drug routes. There is no illegitimate government in Greenland. There is absolutely no justification for it– no historical ownership, no broken treaties, nothing can justify it.”

In recent weeks, President Trump said the US will take control of Greenland. The President argues it is a matter of national security, as Russia or China will seize Greenland from Denmark if the US does not gain control first. 
In response to Trump’s threats, Denmark has begun increasing its military presence in Greenland. 

Trump’s plan to take Greenland has met stiff opposition in Europe. The President has slapped 10% tariffs on eight European countries. Trump said the tariffs would increase if those nations did not change policy and support the US seizure of Greenland. 

An executive at Deutsche Bank suggested that European countries could pressure the US to back away from Greenland by refusing to buy US bonds. George Saravelos, head of FX research, explained, “For all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits.”

Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the risk of a currency war with Europe. “The media has latched on to this. I think it is a completely false narrative. It defies any logic,” he said Tuesday. 

“If you look, the US Treasury market was the best-performing market in the world, or the best G7-performing bond market, and we had the best performance since 2020. It is the most liquid market.” Bessent continued,” It is the basis for all financial transactions, and I am sure that the European governments will continue holding it.”

The President said he did not expect Europe to push back too much if he annexed Greenland. “I don’t think they are going to push back too much,” he said, adding, “We have to have it.”

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Denmark, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

It wasn’t Trump’s mind or morality that stopped his Iran attack.

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition, 21 Jan 26

A week ago President Trump was posturing about an imminent attack to overthrow the Iranian regime embroiled in massive protests. His declared motive was to save the Iranian protesters seeking internal regime change who were being slaughtered by the regime.

Then Trump pivoted, declaring since the regime was no longer planning to execute protesters, he wouldn’t attack.

But it wasn’t Iranian government benevolence that persuaded Trump to stand down. The two reasons Trump’s explanation was covering up were reality on the ground and a phone call.

The massive but failed protests were not solely a spontaneous internal revolt. They were fomented and supported by both the US and Israel to complete their long sought dream of regime change to destabilize Iran, Israel’s last hegemonic rival in the region. Israel’s Mossad was definitely on the ground and likely the CIA as well. Trump was cheering on the protests from the sidelines.

Trump was poised to attack to complete the regime change operation when protest success appeared imminent. But Iran’s government quickly and decisively snuffed out the protests, ending Trump’s dream of adding more thousands to his massive, murderous death toll bombing 7 countries in his first year of term two.

Trump also got a call from the real boss of US Middle East policy….Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He told Trump that with the regime intact, Israel would be decimated by thousands of Iranian missiles once Trump attacked.

Iran’s government may be secure for now but Israeli, US dream of Iranian regime change will never cease.

Trump lied to the New York Times when he said the only thing that can stop him from foreign intervention is “my own mind, my own morality.” What stopped Trump from attacking Iran again, as he did in June, is what stopped him then… failure on the ground and a call from the guy giving Trump his orders on Middle East foreign policy.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Zionist Billionaires Openly Acknowledge Manipulating The US Government.

Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 19, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/zionist-billionaires-openly-acknowledge?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=185023681&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Speaking together at the Israeli-American Council Summit on Saturday, billionaire Zionist megadonors Miriam Adelson and Haim Saban strongly implied that they are engaged in some extremely shady activities to manipulate the US government in advancement of Israeli interests.

There’s a guy I follow on Twitter named Chris Menahan who’s always posting clips from Zionist events which might otherwise go unnoticed, frequently turning up jarring admissions from pro-Israel operatives who tend to loosen their lips a bit when addressing an audience of like-minded individuals. I recently cited a clip he spotted featuring former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz decrying the way social media has allowed the public to view evidence of Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

Menahan has spotlighted some very revealing moments from Adelson and Saban, both of whom are dual US-Israeli citizens, and both of whom have provided funding to the Israeli-American Council (IAC). In 2014, The Nation’s MJ Rosenberg wrote that Saban and Miriam Adelson’s late husband Sheldon were using influence operations like the IAC to become “the Koch brothers on Israel.”

Here’s a transcript of a very revealing interaction between Adelson and event host Shawn Evenhaim:

Evenhaim: Miri, you and Sheldon created a lot of relationships over the years with politicians, at the state level, and especially at the federal level. I want you to share with everyone why is it so important and how you do it, and again, writing cheques is a part of it, but there is more than writing just cheques so, how do you do it?

Adelson: Shawn, can you allow me not to answer?

Evenhaim (shrugs): You choose!

Adelson: I want to be truthful and there are so many things that I don’t want to talk about.

Evenhaim: Yeah, I mean we don’t want specifics but that’s okay.

Miriam Adelson is here admitting that in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars that she and Sheldon are known to have poured into the political campaigns of Donald Trump and other Republican politicians, they have also been manipulating US politics behind the scenes in ways that she would prefer to keep secret from the public. Presumably because it would cause a significant scandal if the public ever found out.

Trump, for the record, has repeatedly admitted that he provided political favors to Israel at the urging of the Adelsons during his first term, saying he moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and legitimized the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in order to please them.

And please them he did. He must have, because Miriam Adelson donated another $100 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign to help him become president again. And now he’s spent the first year of his administration bombing Iran and Yemen, working to take control of Gaza, and aggressively stomping out criticism of Israel in the United States.

Back in 2020, before all these blatant admissions, musician Roger Waters was smeared as an antisemite by the Anti-Defamation League and other Zionist groups for saying that Sheldon Adelson was using his wealth to exert influence over US politics.

Saban was even more guarded about his political operations than Adelson in his response to the same question from Evenhaim:

“I want to be cautious how I’m saying… (Pause) It’s a system that we did not create. It’s a system that’s in place. It’s a legal system and we just play within the system. And that’s it! I mean it’s really quite simple. If you support a politician, you, under normal circumstances, should have access to be able to share opinions and try to help them see your point of view. That’s what access grants you, and the contribution and the financial support grants you the access, sooooo… I mean…. (shrugs) those that give more have more access and those that give less have less access. It’s a simple math. Trust me.”

Haim Saban, whose campaign donations focus on the other side of the aisle with Democratic Party funding, has famously said “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” In 2022 AIPAC’s superpac cited Saban’s financial clout to argue that deviating from support for Israel would cost the Democrats critical funding, saying “Our activist donors, who include one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party, are focused on ensuring that we have a U.S. Congress that, like President Biden, supports a vibrant and robust relationship with our democratic ally, Israel.”

As with Adelson, we can surmise that Saban said he wanted to be “cautious” how he described his influence operations because it would cause a major scandal if the American people understood what he’s been up to.

Some people will look at these clips and claim it’s antisemitic to even share them. Others will look at them and cite them as evidence that the world is ruled by Jews. For me they’re just evidence that the world is ruled by wealthy sociopaths, and that western democracy is an illusion.

I mean, you really couldn’t ask for a better illustration of the sham of American democracy than this. Two billionaires from supposedly opposite political parties publicly admitting that they use their obscene wealth to manipulate US politics to advance the military and geopolitical agendas of a foreign state on the other side of the planet.

And as Saban said, it’s all legal. Corruption is legal in the United States of America. Plutocrats are allowed to leverage their fortunes to manipulate the US government using campaign funding and lobbying for the advancement of their personal, financial, and ideological agendas. If you have a few million dollars to spare you can use them to make criminal charges go away, to roll back environmental regulations or worker protections which hurt the profit margins of your business, or even to get military explosives shipped to a foreign government for use in an ongoing genocide.

And it’s all being done with complete disregard for the will of the electorate. The American people have no control over what their government does under the current political system. They vote for one oligarchic puppet, then they vote for the oligarchic puppet in the other party when that doesn’t work out, going back and forth without realizing that at no point are they changing the actual power structure under which they live.

That power structure is called plutocracy. That’s only real political system the United States has.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

US aggression, UK support: The ‘special relationship’

From Iran to Libya, from Panama to Venezuela, there is a history of the UK supporting illegal US military interventions

MARK CURTIS, 12 January 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/us-aggression-uk-support-the-special-relationship/

Forty years ago, US warplanes bombed Libya, attempting to assassinate its leader Muammar Gaddafi. Failing in that task, they managed to kill dozens of civilians in Tripoli, Libya’s capital.

The attacks, which were in response to the bombing of a Berlin nightclub blamed on Gaddafi, were strongly supported by Margaret Thatcher’s government. Indeed, she allowed some of the US jets to take off from bases in Britain.  

In the face of widespread public opposition to the US raid, a defiant Thatcher told parliament it was “a necessary and proportionate response to a clear pattern of Libyan terrorism” and to “uphold international law”.

However, the UN General Assembly, and most world opinion, condemned the attack as a violation of international law. 

But for the British prime minister: “The United States has stood by us in times of need, as we have stood by her. To refuse their request for the use of bases here would have been to abandon our responsibilities as an ally and to weaken the fight against terrorism.”

Fast forward two decades, and we find ourselves in a not dissimilar situation over US attacks on Venezuela. 

UK ministers give their backing to the kidnapping of a foreign head of state amidst a military intervention, condemned in the wider world but supported in Whitehall because of the so-called “special relationship”.

‘Our full support’

It was always thus. Three years after the attack on Libya, the US invaded Panama in December 1989. US aggression killed up to 3,000 people in this instance, and overthrew President Manuel Noriega, who had been on the CIA’s payroll for decades.

The invasion was widely considered to be illegal and in violation of the charters of both the UN and the Organization of American States.

A Foreign Office legal adviser wrote on the day of the invasion that “it is not possible to conclude that the American action was justified in international law”.

This didn’t matter in the British corridors of power. In a private phone call, Thatcher assured US president George W Bush that the intervention “was a very courageous decision which would have our full support”.

In the days that followed, Britain even vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which “strongly deplores” the invasion.

Clinton/Blair double act

A change in leadership in London and Washington made little difference to this pattern in the 1990s when the double act became Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.


In August 1998, Clinton launched a wave of cruise missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for Al Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania earlier that month.

Al Qaeda’s bombings were horrific, killing over 300 people. But while the US retaliation struck terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, its target in Sudan was a pharmaceuticals factory that produced medicines for the country’s population. 

The US claimed the plant was manufacturing chemical weapons but no strong evidence ever emerged for this. 

Amid the controversy, Bill Clinton blocked proposals for a UN investigation into the matter while Tony Blair strongly backed his ally’s attacks — against the advice of some British diplomats reportedly being appalled at them.

It was only a few months later, in December 1998, that Bill and Tony worked even more closely together in a new bombing campaign. 

They authorised four days of air strikes on Iraq, ostensibly to degrade dictator Saddam Hussein’s ability to store and produce weapons of mass destruction (which, of course, never materialised).

The declassified files show that Blair and his closest advisers were consistently informed by UK legal advisers that attacking Iraq would not be lawful. 

The only exception would be if a new UN Security Council resolution were to be passed saying Saddam was in “material breach” of Iraq’s previous commitments – which London and Washington never secured.

In a sign of Blair’s attitude towards legal requirements, he privately wrote at the time that he found his law officers’ legal advice “unconvincing”.

When he announced military action to parliament in November 1998, Blair misled the house by saying: “I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents”.

‘Act of war’

Over 20 years later, it was the turn of Boris Johnson to acquiesce to Donald Trump in an overtly illegal US act of aggression.

In January 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which the US had designated a terrorist organisation.

Washington tried to justify the killing by claiming it had intelligence that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on US interests across the Middle East. 

But a UN report found that the assassination was illegal. Indeed, the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, said it marked a watershed in international law. 

“It is hard to imagine that a similar strike against a Western military leader would not be considered as an act of war, potentially leading to intense action, political, military and otherwise, against the State launching the strike”, she wrote.

By contrast, Johnson defended the US action and said that “we will not lament” Soleimani’s death. He added that “the strict issue of legality is not for the UK to determine since it was not our operation” — precisely what Keir Starmer has just said about Venezuela. 

London’s support for Washington also came in the form of Johnson’s equally belligerent foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who added that the US “had a right to exercise self-defence”.

Bombing Iran

Trump attacked Iran again after Keir Starmer had been in office for nearly a year. In June last year, the US launched air strikes on nuclear-related sites in the country, ostensibly to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear arms programme.

A group of UN experts condemned the intervention, stating: “These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country.” 

Yet Starmer’s response was a rehearsal of his reaction to Trump’s recent kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. The British prime minister failed to condemn the US intervention, instead going along with it by saying it was “clear Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

Similarly, foreign secretary David Lammy was repeatedly asked whether the US attacks were illegal, and refused to say.  

Backing the law by violating it

By the time the US under Trump overthrew the Venezuelan government earlier this month, the UK response was utterly predictable. 

Starmer and other ministers welcomed Maduro’s overthrow, failed to identify it as an obvious violation of international law and even had the audacity to claim they remained strong  supporters of that law.  

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper said in a parliamentary debate on Venezuela that “we will always argue for the upholding of international law”, precisely at a time she was supporting an obvious violation of it.

It was the same with her deputy. A day after telling parliament she welcomed the illegal US removal of Maduro, foreign minister Jenny Chapman told parliament the UK’s “support for international law… is unwavering”. 

Maduro’s kidnapping was strongly condemned by UN experts while its human rights chief, Volker Turk, said it “violates the country’s sovereignty and the UN charter”.

This failed to deter the UK immediately proceeding with military collaboration with Trump’s rogue state. Four days after the kidnapping, the UK provided military support to Washington to help it seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker near the northwest waters of the UK. 

Declassified asked legal experts to comment on Trump’s latest military intervention and many are concluding it is yet another violation. 

The decades-long cycle goes on. The US and UK have long been repeatedly undermining what exists of a rules-based international order – while claiming to uphold it. 

Who knows where it will lead us in terms of future wars and what price will be paid by ordinary people for the world’s leading states creating a global law of the jungle. 

January 21, 2026 Posted by | UK, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump Lashes Out At Norway Over Nobel Peace Prize In Latest Push To Annex Greenland.

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace.”

blueapples, Jan 20, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/trump-lashes-out-at-norway-over-nobel?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=185048801&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Although the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize had fallen into tatters long before President Donald J. Trump’s recent quest to have it awarded to him, a bizarre letter he penned to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has taken the mockery of the prize to new heights. Trump declared he “no longer feels an obligation to think purely of peace” in the letter to Norway’s head of state, raising tensions even higher over the U.S.’ continued quest to annex Greenland after several NATO member states deployed troops to the Danish territory.

Trump reaffirmed his administration’s position that U.S. control of Greenland is necessary to secure the Western Hemisphere from the threat of Russian and Chinese infiltration. Trump’s claim that Denmark cannot protect Greenland from Russia or China is contravened by the fact that the Danish territory is covered by NATO’s collective security pact. By virtue of being a territory of Denmark, one of NATO’s founding member states, Greenland is protected by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. This means that any attack on Greenland by a nation such as Russia or China would constitute an attack against all member states, providing as much protection to Greenland as is provided to the U.S., Canada, or any European nation belonging to NATO.

The letter written by Trump to Støre was leaked after being forwarded to several European ambassadors in Washington, D.C., and reads as follows:

“Dear Jonas: Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”

Although Trump alleges that the country of Norway decided not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian government plays no role in determining its recipient. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member body elected by the Norwegian Parliament in accordance with the will of the late eponymous founder of the award, Alfred Nobel. The Nobel Peace Prize is the only award determined by the committee. The other five Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and economics are awarded by respective Swedish bodies, including the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Karolinska Institutet, and the Swedish Academy. Although the Norwegian Parliament does elect the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, it has no authority in determining who they vote to recognize as the laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee voted to award the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado despite Trump and other world leaders, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, lobbying to have him selected as its laureate. Machado, the longtime opponent of the Venezuelan governments led by presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, was awarded the prize on October 10th, 2025 for what the committee praised as her setting “one of the most extraordinary examples of civilian courage in Latin America in recent times.”

Despite that acclaim, Machado is seen by much of the world as a puppet of the West being used to expand its control over South America. Just weeks after the U.S. deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by executing Operation Absolute Resolve in the early morning hours of January 3rd, Machado visited the White House to hand over the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Trump. Machado’s decision to give Trump the prize came as the U.S. continues to determine its vision for the future of the governance of Venezuela in the wake of overthrowing Maduro. Despite being propped up to replace Maduro, the Trump administration has not endorsed Machado as his successor just yet, though her decision to give Trump the award appears designed to curry his favor by influencing that decision.

While Trump characterized Machado’s decision as a “wonderful gesture of mutual respect,” the gesture was a performative one, as the prize is non-transferable. In a statement released following Trump and Machado’s meeting, the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated, “The medal and the diploma are the physical symbols confirming that an individual or organization has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize itself—the honor and recognition—remains inseparably linked to the person or organization designated as the laureate by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.” Trump’s decision to accept the award is ironic, considering how he and his MAGA acolytes have mocked participation trophies as symbols of the declining American culture they stand against. By choosing to accept the Nobel Peace Prize from Machado, Trump has effectively received his very own participation trophy.

Despite now having the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize firmly in his grasp, the letter Trump wrote to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre shows that being passed over for its actual awarding continues to leave a sour taste in his mouth. The letter also conveys the vindictiveness Trump has over the snub, which ostensibly is influencing his foreign policymaking as he uses it to continue to justify the U.S.’ territorial claim to Greenland.

As the Trump administration continues to escalate the pressure it places on the rest of the world in its quest to annex Greenland, most recently by vowing to implement tariffs on nations that oppose the U.S. acquiring the territory, the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t the only thing this saga has brought the fallacy of to light. The conflict also reveals the fallacy of NATO, which has deployed troops to protect itself against what it deems as a threat against it from its leading member state. That internal strife makes NATO appear to be an antiquated and entangled web of alliances, reminiscent of the pre-World War I world order. The disorder caused by those alliances ultimately erupted into a global conflict following the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. With NATO continuing to wage a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the internal conflict it finds itself in over the U.S.’ claim to Greenland may be the catalyst leading to the facade of its alliance crumbling, which the aftermath of risks leading to that history repeating itself all over again.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Trump - personality, USA | Leave a comment

US Evacuating Some Troops From Middle East Bases as It Considers Attacking Iran

One of the bases the US is pulling troops from is the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which Iran previously attacked in retaliation for the US bombing its nuclear facilities

NEWS.ANTIWAR.COM, by Dave DeCamp | January 14, 2026

The US is pulling some troops from several of its bases in the Middle East, as European officials told Reuters on Wednesday evening that a US attack on Iran could come within the next 24 hours. The US pulled forces from bases in the region before the start of the 12-day US-Israeli war against Iran in June 2025.

One of the bases the US is pulling troops from is the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which Iran attacked in June in retaliation for the US bombing its nuclear facilities. Iran gave the US advanced warning ahead of the attack, giving the US military time to evacuate its forces and prepare to intercept the missiles.

Iranian officials have been warning they will strike US bases and ships in the region in response to any attack, and it’s likely this time they won’t give advanced notice……………………………………………………………………………………… https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/14/us-evacuating-some-troops-from-middle-east-bases-as-it-considers-attacking-iran/

January 20, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

All the president’s yes-men?

   by beyondnuclearinternational

The NRC commission looks poised to rubber-stamp “Cowboy Chernobyl”, write Paul Gunter and Linda Pentz Gunter

Donald Trump loves a yes-man. What we are now waiting to learn is just how many of those yes-men are sitting on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The agency was ordered late last year by the then White House and Elon Musk-created US Department of Government Efficiency, to effectively accelerate and “rubber stamp” reactor license approvals in order to fulfill the White House’s reckless directive, contained in four executive orders issued last May, to license new reactors at lighting speed.

On December 1, the NRC proudly announced that its staff had completed their final safety evaluation for the Bill Gates company TerraPower’s small modular reactor design in record time, in keeping with the make haste mandate from the White House. The NRC staff had concluded that “there are no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit.”

NRC commissioner David Wright was abruptly and surprisingly demoted from his position as chairman after serving in that capacity for less than one year.

Jeremy Groom, acting director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, even bragged how the NRC staff “finished our technical work on the Kemmerer review a month ahead of our already accelerated schedule, as we aim to make licensing decisions for new, advanced reactors in no more than 18 months.”

What we are now waiting to find out, likely sometime this month, is whether the five NRC commissioners will indeed grant a construction license to a patently dangerous reactor design (we are using the term “dangerous” here under their own definition since all of us already know that every nuclear reactor design is inherently dangerous and the so-called new ones haven’t changed that reality.)

Who will be calling those shots, however, has now been significantly reshuffled by the Trump administration. 

Sitting NRC commissioner and Republican David Wright had been appointed commission chair immediately after Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, bumping the Biden administration’s appointed chair, Democrat Christopher Hanson, to commissioner. 

By June, the White House had unceremoniously fired Hanson from the commission “without cause” in a move widely viewed as illegal based on US Supreme Court precedent case law that went unchallenged. By August, Republican commissioner Annie Caputo had resigned, a surprise move explained by the need to “spend more time with family,” invariable a convenient cover story. This left two vacant seats on the commission.

These have now been filled by two Republicans nominated by the White House — Douglas Weaver (straight from industry) and Ho Nieh, who has been spinning through industry-regulator revolving doors for much of his career.

Nieh has been an NRC employee for 23 years, reaching senior management level. He was confirmed to the commission by the US Senate on November 19, 2025 and sworn in on December 4, 2025. 

Then, in yet another surprise move, on January 8, 2026, Trump named Ho Nieh the new NRC commission chairman, effective immediately, bumping David Wright back to commissioner. Caputo’s vacant seat was filled by Weaver.

This was a strategic political maneuver to set up a 3-2 Republican majority on the commission, with the Democrats — Bradley Crowell (term expiring June 30, 2027) and Matthew Marzano (term expiring June 30, 2028 — now pushed to the minority………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The witnesses for the House hearing — tellingly called “American Energy Dominance: Dawn of the New Nuclear Era” — came exclusively from the industry, with representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute — the nuclear industry’s paid propaganda arm — and from Southern Company, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance and the Idaho National Laboratory.

Entirely missing were any contrary, independent, objective and scientifically knowledgeable voices. Did they invite Lyman or M.V. Ramana, or Arjun Makhijani, physicists who actually understand how precisely dangerous these new reactor schemes are?

Did they invite Amory Lovins to blow the lid off the extreme costs or Mark Jacobson to educate them on how they could achieve their same goals with renewables instead?

And did they invite anyone from the targeted communities to see if they actually wanted these things in their neighborhoods or had even been consulted?

Even the right wing British daily newspaper, the Daily Mail, ran a headline that screamed “Tiny city of just 2,000 residents are fearful as Bill Gates-backed nuclear plant dubbed ‘Cowboy Chernobyl is built on their doorstep,” borrowing the moniker Lyman had used for the Natrium plan.

“I don’t think there are, at least from our perspective, many communities that are out there raising their hands saying, ‘Yes. We want a nuclear project in our community with an expedited safety and environmental review,’” John Burrows, Wyoming Outdoor Council’s energy and climate policy director told his local NPR station. “It’s just not something that any community wants to see, especially for a pilot or demonstration project.”

At least 60 percent of Americans now say they want more nuclear power according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. Of course they do, because they, like members of Congress, are only listening to the endless propaganda drumbeat from the nuclear industry, blasted non-stop across mainstream media and almost always without challenge.

Lyman’s “Cowboy Chernobyl” quip is actually a deep serious warning. It’s time we drove those nuclear cowboys off into the sunset, not in glory but in disgrace.

Paul Gunter is the Director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear. Linda Pentz Gunter is the founder of Beyond Nuclear and serves as its international specialist. Her book, No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War, can be pre-ordered now from Pluto Press. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/01/15/all-the-presidents-yes-men/

January 20, 2026 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Revealed: The CIA-Backed Think Tanks Fueling The Iran Protests

Reading between the lines, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is attempting to build up a widespread network of media outlets, NGOs, activists, intellectuals, student leaders and politicians who will all sing from the same hymn sheet, that of “transitioning” from “authoritarianism” (i.e., the current system of government” to “democracy,” (i.e., a U.S.-picked government). In other words: regime change.

Mint Press News, January 15th, 2026. Alan Macleod

As waves of deadly demonstrations and counter-demonstrations hit Iran, MintPress examines the CIA-backed NGOs helping to stir the outrage and foment more violence.

One of these groups is Human Rights Activists In Iran, frequently referred to as HRA or HRAI in the media. The group, and its media arm, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) have become the go-to group of experts for Western media, and are the source of many of the most inflammatory claims and shockingly high casualty figures reported in the press. In the past week alone, their assertions have provided much of the basis for stories in CNNThe Wall Street JournalNPRABC NewsSky News, and The New York Post, among others. And in a passionate plea for leftists to support the protests, Owen Jones wrote in The Guardian Tuesday that HRAI are a “respected” group whose death toll proclamations are “probably significant underestimates.”

Yet what none of these reports mention is that Human Rights Activists In Iran is bankrolled by the Central Intelligence Agency, through its cutout organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

“Independent” NGOs, Brought to You By the CIA

Established in 2006, Human Rights Activists in Iran is based in Fairfax, Virginia, just a stone’s throw away from CIA headquarters in Langley. It describes itself as a “non-political” association of activists dedicated to advancing freedom and rights in Iran. On its website, it notes that, “because the organization seeks to remain independent, it doesn’t accept financial aid from neither political groups nor governments.” Yet, in the same paragraph, it notes that “HRAI has also been accepting donations from National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit, non-governmental organization in the United States of America.” The level of NED investment into HRAI has been substantial, to say the least; journalist Michael Tracey found that, in 2024 alone, the NED had apportioned well over $900,000 towards the organization.

Another NGO widely cited in recent media reports on the protests is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI). The group has been quoted widely, including by The Washington PostPBS, and ABC News. Like with the HRAI, these reports also fail to disclose the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center’s proximity to the U.S. national security state.

Although it does not mention it in its funding disclaimer, the center is supported by the NED. Last year, the NED described the center as a “partner” organization, and awarded its director, Roya Boroumand, their 2024 Goler T. Butcher medal for democracy promotion.

“Roya and her organization have worked rigorously and objectively to document human rights violations committed by the regime in Iran,” said Amira Maaty, senior director for NED’s Middle East and North Africa programs. “The work of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center is an indispensable resource for victims to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable under international law. NED is proud to support Roya and the center in their advocacy for human rights and tireless pursuit of a democratic future for Iran.”

In addition to this, sitting on the center’s board of directors is controversial academic, Francis Fukuyama, a former NED board member and an editor of its “Journal of Democracy” publication.

If anything, the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) has gone further than HRAI or the ABCHRI. Widely cited across Western media (e.g., The New York TimesThe GuardianUSA Today), the CHRI has been the source of many of the goriest and most lurid stories coming out of Iran. A Monday article in The Washington Post, for example, leaned on the CHRI’s expertise to report that Iranian hospitals were being overwhelmed and had even run out of blood to treat the victims of government repression. “A massacre is unfolding. The world must act now to prevent further loss of life,” a CHRI spokesperson said. Given President Trump’s recent threats about U.S. military attacks on Iran, the implications of the statement were clear.

And yet, like with the other NGOs profiled, none of the corporate media outlets citing the Center for Human Rights in Iran noted its close connections to the U.S. national security state. The CHRI – an Iranian human rights group based in New York City and Washington, D.C. – was identified by the government of China as directly funded by the NED.

The claim is far from outlandish, given that CHRI board member, Mehrangiz Kar, is a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the NED. And in 2002 at a star-studded gala on Capitol Hill, First Lady Laura Bush and future president Joe Biden presented Kar with the NED’s annual Democracy Award.

 A History of Regime Change Ops

The National Endowment for Democracy was created in 1983 by the Reagan administration, after a series of scandals had seriously damaged the image and reputation of the CIA. The Church Committee – a 1975 U.S. Senate investigation into CIA activities – found that the agency had masterminded the assassination of several foreign heads of state, was involved in a massive domestic surveillance campaign against progressive groups, had infiltrated and placed agents in hundreds of U.S. media outlets, and was carrying out shocking mind control experiments on unwilling American participants.

Technically a private entity, although receiving virtually all its funding from the federal government and being staffed by ex-spooks, the NED was created as a way to outsource many of the agency’s most controversial activities, especially overseas regime change operations. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, the NED’s longtime president, said in 1986. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.

Part of the CIA’s mission was to create a worldwide network of media outlets and NGOs that would parrot CIA talking points, passing it off as credible news. As former CIA taskforce leader John Stockwell admitted, “I had propagandists all over the world.” Stockwell went on to describe how he helped flood the world with fake news demonizing Cuba:

We pumped dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists [to the media]… We ran [faked] photographs that made almost every newspaper in the country… We didn’t know of one single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw, false propaganda to create an illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast.”

Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, alluded this being active CIA policy. At a 2019 talk at Texas A&M University, he said, “When I was a cadet, what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses [on] it!”

One of the NED’s greatest successes came in 1996, when it successfully swung elections in Russia, spending vast amounts of money to ensure U.S. puppet ruler Boris Yeltsin would remain in power. Yeltsin, who came to power in a 1993 coup that dissolved parliament, was deeply unpopular, and it appeared that the Russian public were ready to vote for a return to Communism. The NED and other American agencies flooded Russia with money and propaganda, ensuring their man remained in power. The story was cataloged in a famous edition of Time magazine, whose title page was emblazoned with the words, “Yanks To The Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win.”

Six years later, the NED provided both the finances and the brains for a briefly successful coup d’état against Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. The NED spent hundreds of thousands of dollars flying coup leaders (such as Marina Corina Machado) back and forth to Washington, D.C. After the coup was overturned and the plot was exposed, NED funding to Machado and her allies actually increased, and the organization has continued to fund her and her political organizations.

The NED would have more luck in Ukraine, playing a key role in the successful 2014 Maidan Revolution that toppled President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with a pro-U.S. successor. The Maidan affair followed a tried-and-tested formula, with large numbers of people coming out to protest, and a hardcore of trained paramilitaries carrying out acts of violence aimed at destabilizing the government and provoking a military response.

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (and future NED board member) Victoria Nuland flew to Kiev to signal the U.S. government’s full support of the movement to oust Yanukovych, even handing out cookies to protestors in the city’s main square. A leaked telephone call showed that the new Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was directly chosen by Nuland. “Yats is the guy,” she can be heard telling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, citing his experience and friendliness with Washington as key factors. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and its aftermath would lead to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine eight years later.

Just across the border in Belarus, the NED planned similar actions to overthrow President Alexander Lukashenko. At the time of the attempt (2020-2021), the NED was pursuing 40 active projects inside the country.

On a Zoom call infiltrated and covertly recorded by activists, the NED’s senior Europe Program officer, Nina Ognianova, boasted that the groups leading the nationwide demonstrations against Lukashenko were trained by her organization. “We don’t think that this movement that is so impressive and so inspiring came out of nowhere — that it just happened overnight,” she said, noting that the NED had made a “significant contribution” to the protests.

On the same call, NED President Gershman noted that “we support many, many groups, and we have a very, very active program throughout the country, and many of the groups obviously have their partners in exile,” boasting that the Belarusian government was powerless to stop them. “We’re not like Freedom House or NDI [the National Democratic Institute] and the IRI [International Republican Institute]; we don’t have offices. So if we’re not there, they can’t kick us out,” he said, comparing the NED to other U.S. regime change organizations.

The attempted Color Revolution did not succeed, however, as demonstrators were met with large counter-demonstrations, and Lukashenko remains in power to this day. The NED’s actions were a key factor in Lukashenko’s decision to abandon his relationship with the West, and ally Belarus with Russia.

Just months after their failure in Belarus, the NED fomented another regime change attempt, this time in Cuba. The agency spent millions of dollars infiltrating and buying off pliant musical artists, especially in the hip hop community, in an attempt to turn local popular culture against its revolution. Led by Cuban rappers, the U.S. attempted to rally the people into the streets, flooding social media with calls from celebrities and politicians alike to topple the government. This did not translate into boots on the ground, however, and the fiasco was written off sarcastically as the U.S.’ “Bay of Tweets.”

So many of the most visible protest movements the world over have been quietly masterminded by the NED. This includes the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests, wherein the agency funnelled millions to the movement’s leaders to keep people in the streets as long as possible. The NED continues to work with Uyghur and Tibetan separatist groups, in the hope of destabilizing China. Other known NED meddling projects include interfering with elections in France, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Poland.

It is precisely for these reasons, therefore, that accepting funding from the NED should be unthinkable for any serious NGO or human rights organization, as so many that do have been front groups for American power and clandestine regime change operations. It is also why the public should be extremely wary about any claims made by organizations on the payroll of a CIA cutout organization, especially those that attempt to hide the fact. Journalists, too, have a duty to scrutinize any statements made by these groups, and inform their readers and viewers about their inherent conflicts of interests.

Targeting Iran

Apart from funding the three U.S.-based human rights NGOs profiled here, the NED is spearheading a myriad of operations targeting the Islamic Republic. According to its 2025 grant listings, there are currently 18 active NED projects for Iran, although the agency does not divulge any of the groups they are working with.

It also refuses to divulge any hard details about these projects, beyond rather bland descriptions that include:

Empowering” a network of “frontline and exiled activists” inside Iran;

“Promoting independent journalism,” and “Establishing media platforms to influence the public;”

“Monitoring and promoting human rights;”

 “Fostering internet freedom;”

“Training student leaders inside Iran;”

“Advancing policy analysis, debate, and collective actions on democracy,” and;

“Foster[ing] collaboration between Iranian civil society and political activists on a democratic vision and raise awareness on civic rights within the legal community, the organization will facilitate debate on transition models from authoritarianism to democracy.”

Reading between the lines, the NED is attempting to build up a widespread network of media outlets, NGOs, activists, intellectuals, student leaders and politicians who will all sing from the same hymn sheet, that of “transitioning” from “authoritarianism” (i.e., the current system of government” to “democracy,” (i.e., a U.S.-picked government). In other words: regime change.

Iran, of course, has been in American crosshairs ever since the removal of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi during the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79. Pahlavi himself had been kept in place by the CIA, who engineered a coup against the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh (1952-53). Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Washington by nationalizing the country’s oil industry, carrying out land reform, and refusing to crush the communist Tudeh Party.

The CIA (the NED’s parent organization), infiltrated Iranian media, paying them to run hysterical anti-Mossadegh content, carried out terror attacks inside Iran, bribed officials to turn against the president, cultivated ties with reactionary elements within the military, and paid protestors to flood the streets at anti-Mossadegh rallies.

The shah reigned for 26 bloody years between 1953 and 1979, until he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution.

The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who almost immediately invaded Iran, leading to a bitter, eight-year long conflict that killed at least half a million people. Washington supplied Hussein with a wide range of weapons, including components for chemical weapons used on Iranians, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1979, Iran has also been under restrictive American economic sanctions, measures that have severely hindered the country’s development. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and turned up the economic pressure. The result was a collapse in the value of the Iranian rial, mass unemployment, soaring rents and a doubling of the price of food. Ordinary people lost both their savings and their long-term security.

Throughout this, Trump has constantly threatened Iran with attack, finally following through in June, bombing a host of infrastructure projects inside the country.

A Legitimate Protest

The current demonstrations began on December 28 as a protest against rising prices. Yet they quickly ballooned into something much bigger, with thousands calling for an overthrow of the government, and even the reinstatement of the monarchy under the son of the shah, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

They were quickly supported and signal boosted by the U.S. and Israeli national security states. “The Iranian regime is in trouble,” Pompeo announced. “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them…” he added. Israeli media are openly reporting that “foreign elements” (i.e., Israeli) are “arming the protesters in Iran with live weapons, and this is the reason for the hundreds of dead among the regime’s people.”

The Israeli intelligence services confirmed Pompeo’s not-so-cryptic assertion. “Go out together into the streets. The time has come,” the spying agency’s official social media accounts instructed Iranians: “We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.”

Trump echoed those words. “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” he roaredadding that American “help is on the way.”

Any debate about what Trump meant by “American help” was ended on Monday, when he stated that “If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue… We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” He also attempted to place an all-out economic blockade, announcing that any country trading with Tehran would face an additional 25% tariff.

All of this, added to the increasing violence of the protests, makes it much harder for Iranians to express themselves politically. What started as a demonstration about the cost of living has spiralled into a huge, openly insurrectionist movement, backed and fomented by the U.S. and Israel. Iranians, of course, have every right to protest, but a wealth of factors have raised the very real possibility that much of the anti-government movement is an inorganic, U.S.-orchestrated attempt at regime change. While Iranians can argue about how they wish to express themselves and what sort of government they want, what is undebatable is that so many of the think tanks and NGOs called upon to provide supposed expert evidence and commentary about these protests are tools of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary:

 

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Iran, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s foreign policy: “I don’t need international law because I’m not looking to hurt people”

Walt Zlotow  West Suburban Peace Coalition  Glen Ellyn IL , 16 Jan 26,

Trump’s foreign policy: “I don’t need international law because I’m not looking to hurt people”

In dismissing international law, Trump went further and proclaimed regarding any limit on his authority to engage in military action, “the only limit is my own mind, my own morality…the only thing that can stop me.

During the past year how has Trump’s own mind, own morality influenced his looking to not hurt people?

Trump supplied Israel with billions in bombs to slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.

He’s bombed imagine bad guys in Somalia 124 times, doubling his previous record of 63 bombings in 2019.

He fired 12 Tomahawk missiles at imagined bad guys in Nigeria killing unknown Nigerians.

He bombed Syria after 3 US soldiers defiling Syrian sovereignty were killed by unknown attackers. Didn’t matter who Trump killed as long as he retaliated.

He bombed Iran to take out an imaginary nuclear bomb program. He may be on the cusp of bombing Iran again to achieve decades’ long US goal of Iranian regime change.

He obliterated 35 small, unarmed boats off Venezuela, killing over 100 unknown persons. Then he attacked Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro’s compound, killing over 100 guards in the process of kidnapping him back to the US.

He’s threatening to invade and take control of Greenland from Denmark.

He’s threatening to change out Cuba’s communist government that has been America’s goal for 66 years.

Back home, he’s sent thousands of masked, armed, poorly trained ICE thugs onto American streets to arrest, harass, beat up, occasionally shoot innocent persons trying to live the American Dream.

Gee, wonder what Trump’s foreign and domestic policy would be like if his stated goal was to hurt people?

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Biden knew Ukraine would lose proxy war with Russia….provoked it anyway

Yet..and yet, President Zelensky is refusing to accept the reality of Ukraine’s defeat, even demanding return of territory lost forever. NATO countries led by delusional leaders Starmer in UK, Merz in Germany and Macron in France, claiming they’re Russia’s next target, are still pledging war resources they don’t have and never will

Walt Zlotow, Jan 17, 2026, Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL

The US proxy war against Russia destroying Ukraine has largely disappeared from mainstream news. US warfare with Venezuela, possible renewed war with Iran, seizing Greenland from Denmark have put a virtual blackout on Ukraine war reporting.

But a bigger reason is the war is lost with no chance of reversing the destruction of Ukraine short of nuclear war with Russia. If that happens we’re all destroyed.

So Trump, his advisors, the national security state (A.K.A. war party) and the aforementioned mainstream news have moved on. They realize the war has become a spectacular defeat for America’s goal of bringing Ukraine into NATO to further weaken Russia and isolate it from the European political economy. Publically admitting defeat and failure is something none of them will dare not speak its name.

Trump, to his credit, is trying to get both Ukraine and NATO to give up and settle on Russia’ sensible terms: no NATO for Ukraine, Ukraine to be forever neutral between Europe and Russia, no return of land containing mainly Russian leaning Ukrainians brutalized by Kyiv for 8 years before Russia intervened.

How badly has Ukraine lost? Over a million and a half dead, wounded or MIA, a quarter million soldiers deserted and over 9 million fled to safer climes. The economy down by a third surviving on European life support. Reconstruction costs once war ends at a half trillion dollars and rising.

Russia meanwhile is thriving, economy up by pivoting away from trade with Europe to the Global South and others only too happy to degrade both US and European hegemony. Result is a tripling of NATO energy costs, collapse of leaders support with nationalist, antiwar opposition poised to take over next election.

Could it get any worse for Ukraine and NATO?

Yet..and yet, President Zelensky is refusing to accept the reality of Ukraine’s defeat, even demanding return of territory lost forever. NATO countries led by delusional leaders Starmer in UK, Merz in Germany and Macron in France, claiming they’re Russia’s next target, are still pledging war resources they don’t have and never will

The only logical explanation is that they know the inevitable defeat facing Ukraine and NATO but are terrified to admit it and do the right thing. Trump, while sensibly pushing Ukraine and NATO, refuses to pull all US support for the lost war. He’s cynically telling NATO to keep the weapons flowing…just as long as they buy them from America. For Trump, lost war can still be a profitable business deal. He’s also refuses to pull the plug on massive weapons Biden foolishly authorized in his last days knowing Trump had no stomach to continue the war.

Speaking of Biden, he knew Ukraine could not prevail when he provoked the Russian Special Military Operation in February, 2022. But he viewed Ukraine’s destruction as collateral damage to so degrading Russia in the process that they would be forever weakened and out of the European political economy. Biden likely viewed US/NATO Ukraine support as a repeat of US meddling that defeated Russia in Afghanistan in 1989. Big mistake as history didn’t repeat.

Biden’s Mother of all Sanctions and $150 billion in weapons backfired spectacularly. So not only did Biden destroy Ukraine by provoking war, he’s likely destroyed America’s dominance leading NATO in Europe. In fact he may have put NATO on the path to history with their impending defeat flailing away at a lost cause.

However it ends, Joe Biden’s legacy will be making the greatest foreign policy mistake so far in America’s 250 years.

Say it wasn’t so, Joe.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment