The Transportation Department, which oversees the safety of airplanes, cars and pipelines, plans to use Google Gemini to draft new regulations. “We don’t need the perfect rule,” said DOT’s top lawyer. “We want good enough.”
The Trump administration is planning touse artificial intelligenceto write federal transportation regulations, according to U.S. Department of Transportation records and interviews with six agency staffers.
The plan was presented to DOT staff last monthat a demonstration of AI’s“potential to revolutionize the way we draft rulemakings,” agency attorney Daniel Cohenwrote to colleagues.The demonstration, Cohen wrote, would showcase “exciting new AI tools available to DOT rule writers to help us do our job better and faster.”
Discussion of the plan continued among agency leadership last week, according to meeting notes reviewed by ProPublica. Gregory Zerzan, the agency’s general counsel, said at that meeting that President Donald Trump is “very excited about this initiative.” Zerzan seemed to suggest that the DOT was at the vanguard of a broader federal effort, calling the department the “point of the spear” and “the first agency that is fully enabled to use AI to draft rules.”
Zerzan appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality. “We don’t need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don’t even need a very good rule on XYZ,” he said, according to the meeting notes. “We want good enough.” Zerzan added, “We’re flooding the zone.”
These developments have alarmed some at DOT. The agency’s rules touch virtually every facet of transportation safety, including regulations that keep airplanes in the sky, prevent gas pipelines from exploding andstop freight trains carrying toxic chemicals from skidding off the rails. Why, some staffers wondered, would the federal government outsource the writing of such critical standardstoa nascent technologynotorious for making mistakes?
The answer from the plan’s boosters is simple: speed. Writing and revising complex federal regulations can take months, sometimes years.But, with DOT’s version of Google Gemini, employees could generate a proposed rule in a matter of minutes or even seconds, two DOT staffers who attended the December demonstration remembered the presenter saying. In any case, most of what goes into the preambles of DOT regulatory documentsis just “word salad,” one staffer recalled the presenter saying.Google Gemini can do word salad.
Zerzan reiterated the ambition to accelerate rulemaking with AI at the meeting last week. The goal is to dramatically compress the timeline in which transportation regulations are produced, such that they could go from idea to complete draft ready for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in just 30 days, he said. That should be possible, he said, because “it shouldn’t take you more than 20 minutes to get a draft rule out of Gemini.”
The DOT plan, which has not previously been reported,represents a new front in the Trump administration’s campaign to incorporate artificial intelligence into the work of the federal government.This administration is not the first to use AI; federal agencies have been gradually stitching the technology into their work for years, including to translate documents, analyze data and categorize public comments,among other uses. But the current administration has been particularly enthusiastic about the technology.Trump released multipleexecutive orders in support of AI last year.In April, Office of Management and Budget DirectorRussell Voughtcirculated a memocalling for the acceleration of its use by the federal government. Three months later, the administration released an “AI Action Plan”that contained a similar directive.None of those documents, however, called explicitly for using AI to write regulations, as DOT is now planning to do.
Those plans are already in motion.The department has used AI to draft a still-unpublished Federal Aviation Administration rule, according to a DOT staffer briefed on the matter.
Skeptics say that so-called large language models such as Gemini and ChatGPT shouldn’t be trusted with the complicated and consequential responsibilities of governance, given that those models are prone to error and incapable of human reasoning. But proponents see AI as a way to automate mindless tasksand wring efficiencies out of a slow-moving federal bureaucracy.
Such optimism was on display in a windowless conference room in Northern Virginia earlier this month, where federal technology officials, convened at anAI summit, discussedadopting an “AI culture” in government and “upskilling” the federal workforce to use the technology. Those federal representatives included Justin Ubert, division chief for cybersecurity and operations at DOT’s Federal Transit Administration,who spoke on a panel about the Transportation Department’s plans for “fast adoption” of artificial intelligence.Many people see humans as a “choke point” that slows down AI, he noted. But eventually, Ubert predicted, humans will fall back into merely an oversight role, monitoring “AI-to-AI interactions.” Ubert declined to speak to ProPublica on the record.
A similarly sanguine attitude about the potential of AI permeated the presentation at DOT in December, which was attended by more than 100 DOT employees,including division heads, high-ranking attorneys and civil servants from rulemaking offices.Brimming with enthusiasm, the presenter told them that Gemini can handle 80% to 90% of the work of writing regulations,while DOT staffers could do the rest, one attendee recalled the presenter saying………………………………………………………………………………………..
Academics and researchers who track the use of AI in government expressed mixed opinions about the DOT plan.If agency rule writers use the technology as a sort of research assistant with plenty of supervision and transparency, it could be useful and save time. But if they cede too much responsibility to AI,that could lead to deficienciesin critical regulations and run afoul of a requirement that federal rules be built on reasoned decision-making. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-artificial-intelligence-google-gemini-transportation-regulations
China’s top general has been accused of leaking information about the country’s nuclear program to the United States and of accepting bribes to facilitate official promotions, including that of an officer to the post of defense minister.
This was reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing attendees of a closed briefing on the case.
The briefing, attended by some of China’s senior military commanders, took place shortly before the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China issued a statement announcing an investigation into General Zhang Youxia.
He had previously been considered one of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s closest military allies.
The official statement provided minimal details, only noting that Zhang was under investigation for serious violations of party discipline and state law.
Sources familiar with the undisclosed briefing said Zhang is suspected of forming political cliques — a term in the Chinese system that refers to informal networks undermining the Communist Party’s unity.
He is also accused of abusing his authority in the Central Military Commission, the top body overseeing the PLA’s administration.
Investigators are focusing on the period when Zhang headed the influential department responsible for military research, development, and procurement.
According to sources, the general allegedly received large sums in exchange for official appointments and promotions within the military procurement system, which operates with multi-billion-dollar budgets.
Zhang Youxia’s Removal and Its Consequences
Zhang’s removal makes the purge of the PRC general staff one of the largest personnel reshuffles in the Chinese military since the dispersal of protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Control over the armed forces is widely seen as critical to the power and political survival of Chinese leaders. Historically, internal party struggles have often been won by those with authority and influence over the military.
Zhang’s dismissal highlights Xi’s drive for absolute concentration of power.
As first vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, a role combining responsibilities similar to those of a US defense minister, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and national security adviser, Zhang held exceptionally broad authority.
He oversaw strategy, promotions, and budgets, and reported directly to Xi. Analysts had considered him virtually untouchable due to his combat experience and personal ties to Xi.
Zhang had survived previous purges among the generals, retained significant loyalty within the military, and remained in his top post well past the normal retirement age.
Analysts say his removal reflects Xi’s urgent effort to “restore order” in the military leadership, despite Zhang’s planned retirement at the next party congress in 2027.
Xi’s unprecedented consolidation of military power also narrows the circle of decision-makers on Taiwan and other strategic issues, including control of China’s nuclear arsenal.
Analysts note that the older generation of PLA leaders has historically acted as a moderating influence in military planning.
The reshuffle comes as Xi seeks to rapidly modernize the military and achieve strategic objectives, including the declared ability to conduct operations against Taiwan by 2027.
Michael Parenti, who died on Saturday at 92, wrote for Consortium News what appears to be his last article on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI.
Michael Parenti, a giant on the American left, who influenced generations of activists, scholars and ordinary Americans, died on Saturday in Berkeley, California. He was 92. Parenti wrote for Consortium News what is believed to be his last article, about the horrors of World War I. It appeared on U.S. Memorial Day, May 28, 2018, and we republish it here ahead of a tribute Consortium News is preparing.
On Memorial Day 2018, in the year marking the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, Michael Parenti contemplates the trenches and the oligarchs who caused so much unnecessary misery.
Looking back at the years of fury and carnage, Colonel Angelo Gatti, staff officer of the Italian Army (Austrian front), wrote in his diary:
“This whole war has been a pile of lies. We came into war because a few men in authority, the dreamers, flung us into it.”
No, Gatti, caro mio, those few men are not dreamers; they are schemers. They perch above us. See how their armament contracts are turned into private fortunes — while the young men are turned into dust: more blood, more money; good for business this war.
It is the rich old men, i pauci, “the few,” as Cicero called the Senate oligarchs whom he faithfully served in ancient Rome. It is the few, who together constitute a bloc of industrialists and landlords, who think war will bring bigger markets abroad and civic discipline at home.
One of i pauci in 1914 saw war as a way of promoting compliance and obedience on the labor front and—as he himself said—war, “would permit the hierarchal reorganization of class relations.”
Just awhile before the heresies of Karl Marx were spreading among Europe’s lower ranks. The proletariats of each country, growing in numbers and strength, were made to wage war against each other.
What better way to confine and misdirect them than with the swirl of mutual destruction.
Then there were the generals and other militarists who started plotting this war as early as 1906, eight years before the first shots were fired.
War for them means glory, medals, promotions, financial rewards, inside favors, and dining with ministers, bankers, and diplomats: the whole prosperity of death.
When the war finally comes, it is greeted with quiet satisfaction by the generals.
Moguls and Monarchs Prevail
But the young men are ripped by waves of machine-gun fire or blown apart by exploding shells. War comes with gas attacks and sniper shots: grenades, mortars, and artillery barrages; the roar of a great inferno and the sickening smell of rotting corpses.
Torn bodies hang sadly on the barbed wire, and trench rats try to eat away at us, even while we are still alive.
Farewell, my loving hearts at home, those who send us their precious tears wrapped in crumpled letters. And farewell my comrades. When the people’s wisdom fails, moguls and monarchs prevail and there seems to be no way out.
Fools dance and the pit sinks deeper as if bottomless. No one can see the sky, or hear the music, or deflect the swarms of lies that cloud our minds like the countless lice that torture our flesh.
Crusted with blood and filth, regiments of lost souls drag themselves to the devil’s pit. “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate.” (“Abandon all hope, ye who enter” as our Dante delivered his painful message).
Meanwhile from above the Vatican wall, the pope himself begs the world leaders to put an end to hostilities, “lest there be no young men left alive in Europe.” But the war industry pays him no heed.
Finally the casualties are more than we can bear. There are mutinies in the French trenches! Agitators in the Czar’s army cry out for “Peace, Land, and Bread!” At home, our families grow bitter. There comes a breaking point as the oligarchs seem to be losing their grip.
At last the guns are mute in the morning air. A strange almost pious silence takes over. The fog and rain seem to wash our wounds and cool our fever. “Still alive,” the sergeant grins, “still alive.” He cups a cigarette in his hand. “Stack those rifles, you lazy bastards.”
He grins again, two teeth missing. Never did his ugly face look so good as on this day in November 1918. Armistice embraces us like a quiet rapture.
Not really a quiet rapture with smiling sergeants. Many troops on both sides continued killing to the bitter end, with a fury that had no mercy.
In one day, November 11, the last day of war, some 10,900 men were wounded or killed from both sides, a furious rage in the face of peace, years of slaughter; now moments of vengeance.
The Fall of Eagles
A big piece of the encrusted aristocratic world breaks off. The Romanovs, Czar and family, are all executed in 1918 in Revolutionary Russia. That same year, the House of Hohenzollern collapses as Kaiser Wilhelm II flees Germany. Also in 1918, the Ottoman empire is shattered.
And on Armistice Day, November 11th, 1918, at 11:00 a.m.—the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month—we mark the end of the war and with it the dissolution of the Habsburg dynasty.
Four indestructible monarchies: Russian, German, Turkish, and Austro-Hungarian, four great empires, each with millions of bayonets and cannon at the ready, now twisting in the dim shadows of history.
Will our children ever forgive us for our dismal confusion? Will they ever understand what we went through? Will we? By 1918, four aristocratic autocracies fade away, leaving so many victims mangled in their wake, and so many bereaved crying through the night.
Back in the trenches, the agitators among us prove right. The mutinous Reds standing before the firing squad last year were right. Their truths must not be buried with them. Why are impoverished workers and peasants killing other impoverished workers and peasants?
Now we know that our real foe is not in the weave of trenches; not at Ypres, nor at the Somme, or Verdun or Caporetto. Closer to home, closer to the deceptive peace that follows a deceptive war.
Now comes a different conflict. We have enemies at home: the schemers who trade our blood for sacks of gold, who make the world safe for hypocrisy, safe for themselves, readying themselves for the next “humanitarian war.”
See how sleek and self-satisfied they look, riding our backs, distracting our minds, filling us with fright about wicked foes. Important things keep happening, but not enough to finish them off. Not yet enough.
Donald Trump keeps insisting he’s a “peace president.” The record shows something closer to a global arsonist with better PR. In just one year of his second term, he bombed seven countries—adding to a list that now reaches ten, more than any president in U.S. history—while demanding a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget that would eclipse the military spending of nearly the entire planet combined.
This video dissects the chasm between Trump’s self‑mythology and the reality of an empire that has only expanded its reach, its violence, and its appetite for public money. It also exposes the bipartisan machinery behind it: Democrats and Republicans alike feeding the military‑industrial complex while slashing social programs at home and calling it “efficiency.”
As Ben Norton lays out, the U.S. isn’t just waging endless wars abroad—it’s waging a class war at home, shifting wealth upward while telling working people to tighten their belts. Trump’s rhetoric may promise peace, prosperity, and fiscal responsibility, but the policies tell a very different story: more bombs, more debt, more suffering, and more power for the same billionaire class that bankrolls Washington.
This is the reality behind the branding. And it’s why journalism that cuts through the mythology is more essential than ever.
Some facts to consider
Trump repeatedly brands himself a “peacemaker” and “peace president,” despite overseeing more bombings than any president in U.S. history.
In 2025 alone, he bombed seven countries; across both terms, the total reaches ten
The countries bombed so far include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, and Venezuela—on top of ongoing U.S. military actions and blockades throughout Latin America. And now Washington is posturing against Mexico as well.
In the last few days, a Cuban diplomat accused the United States of “international piracy” as Washington continues blocking Venezuelan oil shipments to the island in the aftermath of the U.S. attack on Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. Carlos de Céspedes, Cuba’s ambassador to Colombia, told Al Jazeerathat the U.S. is effectively imposing a “marine siege.”
Trump, meanwhile, is bragging that “Cuba is ready to fall.” On January 5 he declared, “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil. They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall.”
All of this sits atop a much longer record: Brown University researchers estimate that U.S. wars since 2001 have caused at least 4.5 million deaths and displaced 38 million people worldwide.
This is certainly not a peace president or a peaceful country. And for anyone who still needs to understand how U.S. policy devastates other nations through coercive measures that overwhelmingly harm children, an October study published in The Lancet found that sanctions imposed by the United States and its Western allies from 1971 to 2021 caused more than 550,000 deaths every year—a toll comparable to the annual global deaths from war, both military and civilian, over the same period.
For more on his campaigns, remember that “Little Marco” and his own State Department were hailing Trump as the “Peacemaker‑in‑Chief” as recently as August—a whiplash‑inducing reversal given today’s situations globally.
A United States aircraft carrier strike group is heading towards the Gulf as tensions build with Iran.
The US military last staged a major build-up in the Middle East in June – days before striking three Iranian nuclear sites during Israel’s 12-day war with Tehran.
This month, US President Donald Trump backed antigovernment protesters in Iran. “Help is on its way,” he told them as the government cracked down. But last week, he dialled down the military rhetoric. The protests have since been quashed.
So what are the US military assets moving to the Gulf? And is the US preparing to strike Iran again?
Why is the US moving warships?
Trump said on Thursday that a US “armada” is heading towards the Gulf region with Iran being its focus.
US officials said an aircraft carrier strike group and other assets are to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.
“We’re watching Iran. We have a big force going towards Iran,” Trump said.
“And maybe we won’t have to use it. … We have a lot of ships going that direction. Just in case, we have a big flotilla going in that direction, and we’ll see what happens,” he added.
The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln changed its path from the South China Sea more than a week ago towards the Middle East. Its carrier strike group includes Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of striking targets deep inside Iran.
The US military vessels en route to the Middle East are also equipped with the Aegis combat system, which provides air and missile defence against ballistic and cruise missiles and other aerial threats.
When Washington hit Iran’s nuclear sites, US forces reportedly launched 30 Tomahawk missiles from submarines and carried out strikes with B-2 bombers.
When asked on Thursday if he wanted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to step down, Trump replied: “I don’t want to get into that, but they know what we want. There is a lot of killing.”
He also reiterated claims that his threats to use force stopped authorities in Iran from executing more than 800 people who had taken part in the protests, a claim denied by Iranian officials.
An unnamed US official told the Reuters news agency that additional air defence systems were being considered for the Middle East, which could be critical to guard against an Iranian strike on US bases in the region.
Iranian state media said the protests killed 3,117 people, including 2,427 civilians and members of the security forces.
How widespread is the US military presence in the Middle East?
The US has operated military bases in the Middle East for decades and has 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers stationed there.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the US operates a broad network of military sites, both permanent and temporary, at at least 19 locations in the region.
Of these, eight are permanent bases, located in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The first US deployment of soldiers in the Middle East was in July 1958 when combat troops were sent to Beirut. At its height, almost 15,000 Marines and Army soldiers were in Lebanon.
The US naval movement towards Iran was ordered despite a new National Defense Strategy being released on Friday. The document is drawn up every four years by the Department of Defense, and the latest security blueprint outlines a pullback of US forces in other parts of the world to prioritise security in the Western Hemisphere.
How has Iran responded?
Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi, who heads coordination between Iran’s army and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned on Thursday that any military strike on Iran would turn all US bases in the region into “legitimate targets”.
General Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, said two days later that Iran is “more ready than ever, finger on the trigger”.
The U.S. is aiming to lead the surge in new nuclear energy developments across the international market
Since taking office for his second term, Donald Trump has shaken the U.S. energy market to its core. Trump signed several executive orders aimed at increasing the oil and gas production in the U.S., and has actively been approving the nuclear buildout as part of the government’s efforts to increase nuclear energy output in the United States.
The U.S. DOE has now finalized two new Other Transaction Agreements with Terrestrial Energy and Oklo. The new OTAs form part of the U.S. Reactor Pilot Program, which has outlined a target of fast-tracking the deployment of the reactors by July 4 of this year.
The context behind the new nuclear development in the U.S.
In August of 2025, the U.S. DOE formally selected ten companies as part of the Reactor Pilot Program, a new path for nuclear energy developers to leverage the accelerated DOE approval instead of the standard Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. Initially, the U.S. was targeting to get up to three reactors online within a year, but that target was amended by Energy Secretary Chris Wright at the 2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo.
Other notable selections by the Department as part of the Reactor Pilot Program include:
Aalo Atomics
Deep Fission
Last Energy
Natura Resources
Standard Nuclear
Oklo and Terrestrial Energy will boost the U.S. nuclear energy output capacity
Oklo is as unique as it gets within the framework of the Reactor Pilot Program, as it has three distinct nuclear energy projects in the United States, namely the Aurora Powerhouse development, the Pluto reactor, and a third reactor being developed by the company’s subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy…….
The 2.2 million men that are currently on the run amounts to 6.8% of the Ukrainian population and is slightly larger than the percentage of Asians in the US.
New Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov shockingly revealed that 200,000 men have already deserted thus far and ten times more (2 million) are actively dodging the draft, which are probably an underestimate but are in any case still very large numbers. To put that into context, Ukraine claimed in early 2025 to have had a population of 32 million, likely an overestimate, so the 2.2 million men who either deserted or dodged the draft amounts to at least 6.8% of the population currently on the run.
Rada Deputy Dmitry Razumkov claimed during a parliamentary session last month that his country had already lost half a million troops by then with an equal number wounded, possibly also an underestimate, while Ukraine is thought to currently field around 900,000 active troops. All of this data enables observers to better understand the significance of these “voluntary losses” since it should be clear by now that 2.2 million more troops would have certainly made a major difference for Ukraine.
That’s not to imply that it would have been able to reverse the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict that have trended in Russia’s favor since the epicfailure of Ukraine’s NATO-backed counteroffensive in summer 2023, but perhaps it might have been able to decelerate the pace of its losses afterwards. Ukraine could have thus also been in a comparatively better diplomatic position too going into Trump 2.0 a year ago and that might have in turn predisposed him to a relatively harder line towards Russia as well.
For that reason, while the scale of its desertions and draft-dodging can’t credibly be described as a game-changer, it can still be considered a significant variable that adversely affected Ukraine’s fortunes. By contrast, this was never a relevant factor for Russia, which hasn’t conscripted anyone unlike Ukraine. On that topic, it’s worthwhile reminding readers about Ukraine’s forcible conscription policy that’s been made infamous by viral videos showing officials snatching young and old men alike off the streets.
This footage and stories that draft-eligible males (25-60 years of age) heard through the grapevine are partly why 2 million of them decided to go on the run and dodge the draft. They’ve also seen drone footage of the conflict zone and are therefore well aware of how likely it is that they’ll be killed shortly after being deployed to the front. These men might sincerely consider themselves to be Ukrainian patriots in their hearts, however they conceptualize it, but they’re not willing to die for nothing.
This segues into the plummeting popularity of the conflict among the populace and increasing support for a quick end thereto per recent Gallup polling. Trump just blamed Zelensky for stalling peace talks, which is in direct opposition to the will of the same people in whose name he still acts despite the expire of his term in May 2024. Other than his authoritarian tendencies, corruption is likely responsible for his obstinance since he’s thought to be profiting from the conflict and might thus fear charges once it ends.
Whenever he’s asked about the conflict, Trump usually says that he wants to end it as soon as possible in order to stop the killing, which it’s now known has spooked at least 2.2 million Ukrainian men into either deserting or dodging the draft. The 6.8% of the population that’s currently on the run is slightly larger than the Asian population in the US (6.7%) per the last census. The sooner that the conflict ends, the sooner that they can re-enter the economy and help rebuild their country, unless they flee abroad first.
An employment tribunal has ordered the taxpayer owned company tasked with safely decommissioning the UK’s first-generation nuclear power sites pay more than £10,800 in compensation to a worker who was banned from speaking Swahili. The Glasgow tribunal found that Nuclear Restoration Services Limited (NRS) discriminated against Mr K Ruiza after his line manager instructed him to only speak English while on site. The judge said the order left him humiliated, distressed and fearful he would lose his job. The tribunal ruled the company must pay £9,000 for injury to feelings, plus £1,875.94 in interest, bringing the total award to £10,875.94.
You circumscribe everything demand that we prove We exist, that We use the land that was always ours, that We have a right to our ancestral lands.
And now it is We who ask: By what right are You here?
it is worth noting that Danish and other Nordic diplomats have disputed Trump’s claims of Russian and Chinese warships operating ‘around Greenland’, for which Trump has offered no public evidence.
China’s anticipated investment in Greenland does not pose a military threat, nor is it something that the United States, Canada, or indeed Denmark should be concerned with. This should be a discussion and debate within Greenland.
The US has set its sights on Greenland due to its mineral wealth and strategic location. But its people – the Kalaallit – are an afterthought in Washington’s machinations.
Every few years, the centre of the imperialist Global North – the United States – forgets its manners.
It is one thing to be rude to Iran or Venezuela, but it is another thing entirely to be rude to Denmark. The North Atlantic has not experienced internecine acrimony since – perhaps – Adolf Hitler turned on Poland in 1939. But to be fair to the United States, it has not coveted Denmark itself. Washington has licked its sticky fingers and placed them upon Greenland.
Denmark began its colonisation of Greenland 305 years ago, in 1721. Constitutional scholars will say that the formal colonial status ended in 1953 when Greenland was incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark and that Greenland gained a further measure of autonomy in 2009 when the Act on Greenland Self-Government was passed – but let’s be frank, it remains a colony.
For context, Greenland (over 2 million square kilometres) is fifty times larger than Denmark. For comparison, if placed over the United States, it would almost stretch from Florida to California. If it were an independent country, it would be the twelfth largest in the world by area. Of course, the Arctic country has a very small population of around 57,700 (roughly equivalent to the population of Hoboken, New Jersey).
In Washington’s imagination, Greenland appears not as a homeland, but as a location – a place on a map or a signature on a radar screen. The words used to talk about it belong to the grammar of possession: purchase, control, seize. This is the language of domination – one imperialist power (United States) wanting to seize the land of a colonial power (Denmark).
But Greenland is not a prize.
The Inuit of Greenland call their country Kalaallit Nunaat: ‘Land of the Kalaallit’ (Greenlanders). When Trump and his allies speak of Greenland, they never speak of the people: the Kalaallit. Instead, Trump speaks of the strategic importance of the island and about what the US government sees as the perils of its Chinese and Russian capture (never mind that neither China nor Russia have made any claims over the territory). Greenland is always a place that someone else must hold, but not the Kalaallit. For people like Trump, or indeed for generations of Danish prime ministers (despite soft statements about the path to self-determination), the Kalaallit have no role as political subjects.
Greenland grew in strategic and economic importance to Denmark after the 1794 discovery of cryolite, a key mineral used in the production of aluminium. This extractive focus continued after the 1956 discovery of uranium and rare earth elements in Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld) in southern Greenland. In 1941, Denmark’s envoy in Washington, Henrik Kauffmann, signed an agreement that allowed the US to establish bases and stations in Greenland. In 1943, the US placed a weather station at Thule (Dundas) known as Bluie West 6, and in 1946 it added a small airstrip. After the Second World War, Denmark was an early entrant to the US effort to build a military bloc against the Soviet Union. In fact, it was a founder of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (1949) and then signed the Defence of Greenland Agreement (1951) that allowed the US to build the Thule Air Base under the codename Operation Blue Jay (now Pituffik Space Base).
The base became useful not only as a place to watch the USSR, but also for missile warning, missile defence, and space surveillance – a strategic foothold that has grown more consequential as Greenland’s uranium and rare earth deposits have become central to the global contest for critical minerals.
As Greenland’s ice sheets have melted in recent decades due to the climate catastrophe, the country’s deep geology has become easier to survey and to mine. Feasibility studies and drilling in the early to mid-2010s (especially 2011–2015) showed that the land was teeming with graphite, lithium, rare earth elements, and uranium. As the United States imposed its New Cold War on China, it had to seek new sources for rare earths given China’s dominance of rare-earth refining and downstream magnet production. The island became not only a source of minerals or a geographical location for power projection, but also a critical node in the US-led supply-chain security architecture.
In August 2010, long before Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trip to China in mid-January 2026, the Canadian government released a report with an interesting title: Statement on Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy: Exercising Sovereignty and Promoting Canada’s Northern Strategy Abroad. On the surface, the report is rather bland, making many pronouncements about how Canada respects the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic and how its intentions are entirely liberal and noble. That posture is difficult to square with the reality that major mining projects across the Canadian Arctic have repeatedly sparked Inuit concerns about impacts on wildlife and Inuit harvesting and that regulators have at times recommended against expansions, as in the case of Baffinland’s Mary River iron mine.
In fact, Canada is home to the world’s largest hub for mining finance (TSX and TSX Venture Exchange list more than half of the world’s publicly traded mining companies), which has been sniffing around the Arctic for decades in search of energy and minerals. The 2010 report does mention Canada’s ‘Northern energy and natural resource potential’ and that the government is ‘investing significantly in mapping the energy and mineral potential of the North’. But there is no mention of the large Canadian private mining companies that would benefit not only from Greenland’s mineral potential (for instance, Amaroq Minerals, which already owns the Nalunaq gold mine in South Greenland) but also from Canada’s Arctic region (for instance, Agnico Eagle Mines, Barrick Mining Company, Canada Rare Earth Corporation, and Trilogy Metals). What is significant about the report is that if it is put into operation, it would sharpen the long-running Canada-US dispute over Arctic navigation, particularly in the Northwest Passage, which Canada treats as internal waters and the US approaches as an international strait.
Canada is an ‘Arctic power’, the report says. There are seven other countries that have an Arctic foothold: Denmark, Finland, Iceland (through Grimsey), Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (through Alaska). They are members of the Arctic Council, which was set up by Canada in 1996 to deal with environmental pollution in the Arctic and to create space for Indigenous organisations in the region to put forward their views. However, the Arctic Council has largely been paralysed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when member countries paused normal cooperation with Russia and later resumed only limited project-level work that does not involve Russian participation, even though Russia holds roughly half of the Arctic coastline.
With consensus required, this has narrowed the council’s role from a venue that could broker pan-Arctic coordination and even negotiate binding agreements to one largely confined to technical working-group projects and assessments. Canada’s claim to being an ‘Arctic power’ comes with bravado but lacks substance. Will it really prevent the US from using its sea lanes, and can it exercise a form of capitalist sovereignty for its mining companies in the Arctic region?
In 2020, before the council paused cooperation with Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) had already called upon its members to ‘set [their] sights on the high north’ (as NATO’s think tank, the Atlantic Council, noted in a report). After 2022, NATO developed a ‘high north’ strategy that can be best appreciated in its 2025 parliamentary reportRenavigating the Unfrozen Arctic. The report identifies what it sees as the primary threat to NATO countries: China and Russia. One of them (Russia) is a major Arctic power, and the other (China) has two scientific stations in the north (Yellow River Station in Svalbard, Norway, which has been there since 2003 studying atmospheric and environmental science, and the China-Iceland Arctic Science Observatory in Kárhóll, Iceland, which has been there since 2018 studying Earth-system and environmental science). China has also indicated that the Arctic waters would be ideal for a Polar Silk Road, a trade corridor that would link China to Europe. But there is no Chinese military footprint in the region as of now.
On 9 January 2026, Trump said that he does not want China or Russia to get a foothold in Greenland. It is true that representatives of Chinese companies have been to Greenland and signed non-binding memorandums of understanding (MOUs), but it is equally true that none of them have gone forward. Trump fears that some of these MOUs might eventually turn into projects that could see Chinese companies on Greenland’s soil. However, since EU investment is so low in Greenland (around $34.9 million per year), and since US (around $130.1 million per year) and Canadian investment ($549.3 million per year) is higher but still lower than an anticipated Chinese investment (at least $1.162 billion), it is credible to fear the Chinese businesses. At the same time, it is worth noting that Danish and other Nordic diplomats have disputed Trump’s claims of Russian and Chinese warships operating ‘around Greenland’, for which Trump has offered no public evidence.
China’s anticipated investment in Greenland does not pose a military threat, nor is it something that the United States, Canada, or indeed Denmark should be concerned with. This should be a discussion and debate within Greenland.
Greenland is not for sale. It is not a military platform or a mineral reserve waiting to be extracted. It is a society, alive with memory and aspiration. The Global South knows this story well – a story of plunder in the name of progress, of military bases in the name of security, of the suffering and starvation of the people who call this land their home.
Land does not dream of being owned. People dream of being free.
Ask Aqqaluk Lynge, a Kalaallit poet, politician, and defender of Inuit rights who wrote in his poem ‘A Life of Respect’:
On maps of the country We must draw points and lines to show we have been here – and are here today, here where the foxes run and birds nest and the fish spawn.
You circumscribe everything demand that we prove We exist, that We use the land that was always ours, that We have a right to our ancestral lands.
And now it is We who ask: By what right are You here?
Japan is shifting its energy policy to redevelop its nuclear energy capacity, aiming for 20 percent of its power from nuclear energy by 2040 to support climate goals.
The world’s largest nuclear facility, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, is preparing to restart operations, which marks a major step in the government’s nuclear deployment plans despite significant public opposition and safety concerns.
Public confidence in the nuclear sector has been harmed by the 2011 Fukushima disaster and further damaged by recent news of a utility, Chubu Electric Power, fabricating seismic risk data.
Alongside plans to establish a strong renewable energy sector, Japan aims to redevelop its nuclear energy capacity to boost its power and support its climate goals. However, with memories of the Fukushima nuclear disaster still fresh, many in Japan are worried about the risks involved with developing the country’s nuclear capacity. Nevertheless, the government has big plans for a new nuclear era, commencing with the restarting of the world’s biggest nuclear facility…………………………………………………………..
The Fukushima accident prompted a widespread distrust of nuclear power in Japan for more than a decade. However, in February 2025, Japan’s Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry published a draft revision of the national basic energy plan, in which the statement on moving away from nuclear power has been removed. Later that month, the Cabinet approved the revised Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, which stated the aim of producing 20 percent of power from nuclear energy by 2040. This marked a significant shift in Japan’s approach to nuclear power.
Before 2011, Japan had 54 reactors that provided around 30 percent of the country’s electricity. At present, just 14 of 33 operable reactors are producing power, while efforts to restart others have been thwarted due to public opposition.
Japan is home to the world’s largest nuclear facility, the 8.2 GW Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, which covers 4.2 km2 of land in Niigata prefecture, 220km north-west of Tokyo. The facility was developed in 2012, but it has yet to come online, as, following the Fukushima disaster, the poor public perception of safety in the nuclear sector led the government to shut down several nuclear reactors.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is operated by Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the same utility that managed Fukushima. Tepco aimed to restart one of the seven reactors at Kashiwazaki on 19th January, but was forced to delay the restart as an alarm malfunctioned during a test of equipment, although the company expects to bring it online within the next few days. The restarting of reactor No. 6 will increase Tokyo’s electricity supply by around 2 percent, as well as mark a major step forward in the government’s plans to deploy more nuclear power in the coming years.
However, many in Japan are still wary about the risks involved with nuclear power projects. Many of those living with proximity to Kashiwazaki-Kariwa are worried about the potential for another Fukushima-scale event, which could lead up to 420,000 residents to be evacuated from across a 30 km radius…………………..
public confidence in nuclear power companies in nuclear power companies has been further harmed due to recent news of a firm fabricating data. It was found that Chubu Electric Power, a utility in central Japan, fabricated seismic risk data during a regulatory review, ahead of a possible restart of two reactors at its idle Hamaoka plant. In response, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) scrapped the safety screening at the plant, which is located on the coast, around 200 km west of Tokyo, in an area prone to Nankai Trough megaquakes. The NRA is now considering inspecting Chubu’s headquarters.
NATO’s civilian head, Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister and abject flunky, appeased Trump at Davos by offering more NATO defenses deployed to Greenland. Rutte, who previously referred to Trump as “daddy”, made the “deal” in private with Trump. No details have been made public nor even shared among other NATO members. How’s that for contempt of underlings?
Since the end of World War Two, the United States paid lip service to global law and order along with its European allies. Under Trump, there is no longer any pretense of lip service. It’s outright imperialist power for naked domination. At one point in his rambling Davos speech, Trump declared such might-is-right land grabbing as normal.
Russia and China, among others, have repeatedly declared the paramount need to abide by international law and the principles of the UN Charter. U.S. imperialist power has no such respect. Trump has openly said so.
Under Trump, the European appeasers are inviting disaster as they indulge his bogeyman games over Greenland.
The old saying that a week is a long time in politics is especially true under the U.S. Presidency of Donald Trump, given his propensity for unhinged bombast, zig-zags, U-turns, vendettas, and theatrics.
So, last week, he was threatening to take over the Danish Arctic territory of Greenland by military force, if needed. Trump was also gearing up to launch an unprecedented trade war against European states that, with pipsqueak temerity, dared to support Denmark, a move that would have cratered the eight-decade-old transatlantic Western alliance.
This week, in a 70-minute rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump, seemingly magnanimously, announced that he was not going to deploy military power to subordinate European NATO “allies”. But he insisted that Greenland must be annexed under U.S. control.
In a telling quip, he said: “I don’t have to use force.” Trump is right on that score. There is no need for military coercion because the European “allies” have been exposed as a bunch of dithering vassals who were pathetically clutching their pearls for the past week out of fear and angst that Uncle Sam was slapping them.
However, when vassals appease, they only end up being abused. The American Don may have softened his contemptuous rhetoric at Davos, but there is little doubt that the expansionist ambitions to grab Greenland will be pursued, and the Europeans will be, in time, further degraded in their submission to the American overlord.
Oddly enough, for a president who boasts about flexing military muscle for imperialist aims, Trump couched his takeover of Greenland as a matter of “national security.” He is claiming that the United States needs to take control of the “big, beautiful piece of ice” to defend it from Russia and China.
He lied that it wasn’t because of Greenland’s vast mineral resources, including oil and rare-earth metals. Trump was claiming that the U.S. is the only NATO member strong enough to keep Russia and China from gaining a foothold. Beijing slammed Trump’s claims as baseless.
In an insulting and absurd remark, he likened Russia and China to how Nazi Germany tried to take Greenland from Denmark during the Second World War, and it was the U.S. that prevented that.
Only a few days before, Trump contradicted himself (not hard for him) by posting a comment deriding how Russia and China are used as “bogeymen”, that is, as false enemies.
Another anomaly was seen with Trump inviting Russia and China to join his dubious Global Board of Peace initiative, which he unveiled with much corny fanfare in Davos. Enemies for peace?
In other words, on Greenland, Trump is cynically playing the Russia and China threat as a pretext for blatantly violating the sovereignty of an ally.
Not that Denmark deserves sympathy. It is questionable how it retains any territorial right to a distant Arctic island whose people have consistently demanded independence from Copenhagen’s colonialist control.
NATO’s civilian head, Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister and abject flunky, appeased Trump at Davos by offering more NATO defenses deployed to Greenland. Rutte, who previously referred to Trump as “daddy”, made the “deal” in private with Trump. No details have been made public nor even shared among other NATO members. How’s that for contempt of underlings?
Trump hailed the so-called framework agreement as a “great deal” for the United States and Europe without sharing the details. It’s believed to permit the installation of Trump’s futuristic Golden Dome missile defense system. If that goes ahead, it will heighten strategic tensions with Russia by militarizing the Arctic, not bring peace or stability. Denmark is reportedly wary that its sovereignty is being sold out in a grubby behind-closed-doors private takeover.
Hence, the transatlantic storm may have subsided somewhat for now, but the damage and mistrust that have shattered the alliance are not going to be repaired. It will only get worse because of the thug-vassal relationship unravelling.
The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, in his speech at Davos, made a shocking admission when he said that the “fiction of rules-based order” between the U.S. and its Western allies is dead.
Trump may have been appeased and placated for a while. But it’s like keeping a predator at bay by throwing pieces of meat at it. Sooner or later, the minions will be on the menu.
Only last week, Denmark and the other European states were dismissing Trump’s outlandish claims about defending the free world from Russia and China by taking control of Greenland. They knew it was a brazen land grab. Now, however, Rutte, the European NATO chief, is saying that NATO must accede to Trump’s demands to protect Greenland from the alleged threat from Russia and China.
After saying there is no such threat, now the Europeans will indulge Trump’s fantasy about Greenland, just to restrain him from overtly abusing them.
The trouble for the European and other Western allies of the United States is that they have consorted with decades of American violations of international law. They have played along with the charade of using Russia and China as enemies of convenience. This has hollowed out any claim of upholding international order and norms.
The U.S. and Europe have played the bogeyman card with regard to Ukraine. The Europeans supported Trump’s aggression against Venezuela and Iran, and they have been complicit in the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza.
This week, while French President Emmanuel Macron was admonishing Trump to respect international order concerning Greenland, he ordered French troops to seize a Russian-linked oil tanker in neutral maritime waters. The latter act of piracy on the high seas was probably an effort by France to demonstrate its loyalty to Washington’s policy of hijacking Russian cargo ships.
Since the end of World War Two, the United States paid lip service to global law and order along with its European allies. Under Trump, there is no longer any pretense of lip service. It’s outright imperialist power for naked domination. At one point in his rambling Davos speech, Trump declared such might-is-right land grabbing as normal.
During the past eight decades of charade and lip service, the U.S. needed the Europeans as a facade of multilateralism for its stealth imperialism. Washington indulged the Europeans, Canadians, and others as “allies”. In reality, they were always vassals.
Now, in the latest historical phase of returning to flagrant imperialism and brazen power, the United States has no use for the pretense of allies. They can be slapped around for the lackeys they are. And we are seeing that with brutality.
Ironically, the European powers have a historic tendency for appeasement. The British and French appeased Nazi Germany in the 1930s with disastrous results. Today, the Europeans are appeasing the United States in its every criminal demand. That is only emboldening the U.S. to expand its outright abuse of international law, or, in other words, its descent into barbarism.
This is not merely about Trump as a maverick megalomaniac. He is but a symptom of the U.S. global empire in desperation mode to maintain its waning power as a new multipolar world potentially emerges. U.S. hegemonic ambitions are untenable, but in a desperate bid to assert itself, the world is being turned upside down and intimidated into submission.
Russia and China, among others, have repeatedly declared the paramount need to abide by international law and the principles of the UN Charter. U.S. imperialist power has no such respect. Trump has openly said so.
Total domination is the only acceptable end for U.S. imperialism. Russia and China should not have any illusion about it, even if, in the short term, Trump wants to make an expedient withdrawal deal in Ukraine, or if he invites them to join his “Bored of Peace” boondoggle.
History shows us that rampant imperialist violence ends in disaster. Under Trump, the European appeasers are inviting disaster as they indulge his bogeyman games over Greenland.
With Project 2025 in full effect, Chris Hedges explains that Trump is neither necessary nor a real player. The “death grip” on our society is already in full force—this goes beyond Trump, threatening to destroy the very fabric of our existing ways of resisting it.
The very idea of elections being free, fair, or even occurring at all is now in question. Far more alarming than Trump’s musings about canceling the midterms was what the president told the New York Times in another Oval Office interview. he admitted that he “regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his loss in the 2020 election.”
One of the central tenets of Project 2025 will be a direct assault on election officials. The Brennan Center warns that Project 2025 “threatens to reverse progress made over the last four years by stripping crucial federal resources from election officials and weaponizing the Department of Justice against officials who make decisions the administration disagrees with.”
With many Americans—and the other useful idiots in the Democratic Party—counting on elections to save us, we are living in a perilous moment that demands action, not hope. Chris Hedges warns that the U.S. has entered an age of authoritarian consolidation, where meaningful resistance must be rebuilt from the ground up. In a fractured society marked by economic precarity, surveillance, and the hollowing out of collective power, traditional movements have been systematically dismantled, leaving dissenters vulnerable. True resistance, Hedges insists, requires disciplined, long-term organizing—starting from zero—because corporate and state power is more entrenched and repressive than ever.
Another crucial step is supporting all independent media, because the New York Times and other media monopolies are not serving our interests. Real resistance requires amplifying voices outside the corporate mainstream.
In a sweeping and unsparing conversation with Glenn Diesen, economist and longtime geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs dissects the accelerating rupture between Europe and the United States — a crisis triggered not by Russia or China, but by Washington’s own imperial overreach. Speaking with Glenn, Sachs argues that Europe is finally confronting the consequences of “riding on the back of a predator,” a metaphor he borrows from President Kennedy’s 1961 warning that those who try to ride the tiger often end up inside it.
A Crisis Europe Helped Create
Sachs traces Europe’s current panic — triggered by Trump’s threats toward Greenland and open hostility toward NATO — to decades of European complicity in U.S. militarism. For years, he argues, European leaders “said not a word” as Washington toppled governments, invaded sovereign states, and shredded international law from Iraq to Libya to Syria.
One of Sachs’ most pointed observations captures the hypocrisy now on display:
“When the United States said, ‘We want Greenland,’ suddenly Europe rediscovered international law.”
The same governments that lectured Iran about “restraint” after being bombed, or applauded the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, now find themselves shocked that the empire they enabled is turning its gaze toward them.
The End of the ‘Rules‑Based Order’
One of the most striking developments Sachs highlights is Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s admission in Davos that the so‑called “rules‑based international order” was never neutral — it was a Western privilege system. With the world shifting toward multipolarity, even U.S. allies are reassessing their dependence on Washington.
Carney’s outreach to China, Sachs notes, signals a geopolitical realignment that Europe has been too timid — or too captured — to attempt.
NATO’s Identity Crisis
The interview exposes a NATO leadership class that continues to praise U.S. power even as Trump openly calls the alliance America’s “enemy from within.” European leaders like Mark Rutte, Sachs argues, have responded with “pathetic” deference, hoping to appease Washington rather than assert independent interests.
Meanwhile, the EU’s political imagination has shrunk to a single unifying principle: Russophobia. Sachs calls this a catastrophic strategic error:
“Europe has no diplomacy with Russia, no diplomacy with the United States — basically no diplomacy at all.”
Germany’s Pivotal Role — and Repeated Failures
Sachs lays particular responsibility at Germany’s feet. From violating its reunification assurances on NATO expansion, to abandoning the 2014 Yanukovych agreement, to failing to enforce the Minsk II settlement, Berlin repeatedly chose alignment with Washington over European stability.
Yet Sachs insists the path to peace still runs through Berlin — joined by France, Italy, and the Central European states already calling for diplomacy.
Economic Warfare as Regime Change
One of the most explosive moments in the interview comes when Sachs quotes U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant openly bragging about collapsing Iran’s economy:
“This is economic statecraft… their economy collapsed… and this is why the people took to the streets.”
For Sachs, this is not policy — it is gangsterism. And Europe’s silence in the face of such actions has only emboldened Washington.
Despite Sachs bleak assessment, in the end there is room for conditional optimism: Europe could still reclaim sovereignty, pursue diplomacy, and avoid becoming collateral damage in America’s imperial decline. But doing so requires courage — something in short supply among current European elites.
As for the National Defense Strategy, it concludes in climactic fashion by declaring that the US must maintain capability to “conduct devastating strikes and operations against targets anywhere in the world.” As if that’s just the most obvious imperative of responsible statecraft that anyone could possibly fathom.
As for the National Defense Strategy, it concludes in climactic fashion by declaring that the US must maintain capability to “conduct devastating strikes and operations against targets anywhere in the world.” As if that’s just the most obvious imperative of responsible statecraft that anyone could possibly fathom.
The new 2026 “National Defense Strategy,” released yesterday, contains a lot of airy rhetoric about finally transitioning to “hardnosed realism,” and away from the misbegotten “grandiose strategies” of yesteryear, wherein the US had foolishly set out to “solve all the world’s problems.” More tangibly, however, the document doesn’t call for a single discernible reduction to America’s comically-large global military footprint. In fact, it calls for expanding that footprint, rather dramatically.
Among these expansions will be for the US to “erect” new military installations in close proximity to China. Per the jargon of NatSec Speak, this means establishing “strong denial defense” in the “First Island Chain” — which may sound like a modestly-sized region to the unschooled reader, but actually encompasses Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and perhaps a smattering of other places like Vietnam and Malaysia, depending on what the cockamamie Grand Strategists decide to theorize and war-game next.
There will also be unspecified measures to “guarantee US military and commercial access” to what is now described as the “key terrain” of Greenland and Panama. On top of “deepening” US military involvement in the Middle East, so as to “enable integration between Israel and our Arabian Gulf partners.”
The document gestures vaguely at Europe needing to take more responsibility for its own defense, but then talks about US-directed efforts to “expand transatlantic defense” with Europe, and affirms the “vital” role of the US in leading NATO — including to counter “Russian threats to the US Homeland.” No specific adjustments in force posture re: Europe are identified.
Iran is back as an urgent threat, as it’s allegedly in the process of “reconstituting its conventional military forces,” and is again seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon. Even though its nuclear facilities were supposedly “obliterated” last June. Naturally, confronting Iran will require the US to “further empower” Israel — what more “empowerment” could they possibly be given at this point? — in recognition of our profound “shared interests” with this “model ally.”
Even in Africa, the document says the US must “empower allies and partners” to prevent Islamic terrorists from establishing “safe havens” — apparently anywhere throughout that vast continent — and the US is itself prepared to strike where deemed necessary. As we already saw with the random bombing of Nigeria last month. (Whatever happened with that? Did we eliminate the Terrorists?)
The document also calls for accelerating US military-industrial production to levels not seen since the Second World War. Yet another devastating blow to the “military-industrial complex.”
It lambasts ill-fated “regime change” expeditions of the past, but heralds the most recent foray into Venezuela, which was legally designated by the Trump DOJ as an explicit “regime change” operation.
“Nation-building” is predictably derided — mere weeks after Trump unilaterally declared himself the new ruler of Venezuela, the economy and governmental structures of which he now wants to personally “rebuild.” This open-ended endeavor could last “much longer” than people think, he says. That’ll be in addition to his other signature “nation-building” initiative — making good on his landmark pledge to “take over” Gaza, which was widely dismissed as outlandish when he first announced it last February. But then by October, there he was, bestowing himself with ultimate governing authority over Gaza. Jared Kushner just rolled out their innovative new “master plan” for nation-building the hell out of that place — complete with cool little diagrams showing how each quadrant of land will be granularly organized. The deal has apparently been sealed for Gaza as a newly-established US military protectorate: an American General was just named Commander of the “International Stabilization Force,” putting him in charge of “security operations” across the territory. A fun new dialect of Arabic might have to be invented for all the American-originated euphemisms.
As for the National Defense Strategy, it concludes in climactic fashion by declaring that the US must maintain capability to “conduct devastating strikes and operations against targets anywhere in the world.” As if that’s just the most obvious imperative of responsible statecraft that anyone could possibly fathom.
Sooooo…. there’s your historic pivot from “grandiose adventures” abroad — which the self-congratulatory document writers hold themselves out as repudiating — and toward a glorious restoration of “practical, hardnosed realism.” Of course, trying to translate the predilections of Trump into some grand strategic treatise is a pretty pointless exercise to begin with — but the intellectual warfighter Pete Hegseth and his underlings evidently felt they should at least give it a whirl. So they “fucked around and found out,” as Pete loves to smugly bluster, and out plopped whatever this is.
True “realism” would necessitate swiftly discarding the document as little more than a collection of meaningless pablum and cliches — just like the differently-named, but weirdly redundant “National Security Strategy” produced in November 2025. Among other silly items, that cousin document contains the assertion that “the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over.” And further, when it comes to changing sub-optimal systems of government in that neck of the woods, “we should encourage and applaud reform when and where it emerges organically, without trying to impose it from without.”
Then within a matter of weeks, right on cue, Trump was boisterously posting that he was “locked and loaded,” and ready to attack Iran again — this time ostensibly in defense of the besieged Iranian protesters. He also announced it’s time for the imposition of “new leadership,” i.e. removal of the Ayatollah. “Freedom” and “human rights” have even been resurrected as viable pretexts for punitive US action. Currently, large-scale US military assets are reassembling in the region.
To comprehend these bewildering developments, perhaps we’ll have to wait in suspense for a revised edition of some supplemental “strategy” document. Which we can then all download together in PDF format, and earnestly ponder, perhaps with coffee and donuts, like a book club brooding over Moby Dick.
Back in some version of “realist” reality, these “strategy” documents are really only notable insofar as they give some morbid insight into how presidential subordinates are required to haphazardly “ideologize” whatever their superior is doing at any given time. A well-worn heuristic would be much simpler, and more instructive: “America First” is still whatever he says it is.
The Trump administration’s unclassified summary of the National Defense Strategy (notably, they can’t call it a National “War” Strategy, by statute) is here (PDF). It released on a Friday evening, after 5 p.m.. My understanding is that the classified version has been complete for about a couple months now and this unclassified summary was going through reframing after the release of last month’s much-discussed National Security Strategy. Anyway, it’s here now, so let’s talk about it.
Much ink will be spilled elsewhere on what this document tells us about the United States’ defense priorities as the Trump administration continues to take a sledgehammer to longstanding principles of U.S. grand strategy. I want to focus on how nuclear policy-minded readers should approach this document.
If you haven’t heard, this administration is not planning on publishing a Nuclear Posture Review, which is not currently required by law, unlike the NDS. The 2026 NDS itself has very little to say on nuclear weapons. Page 17 contains this bullet, which sums up nearly the totality of what this document has to say about U.S. nuclear forces and policy:
“Modernise and adapt U.S forces: The United States requires a strong, secure and effective nuclear arsenal adapted to the nation’s overall and defense strategies. We will modernise and adapt our nuclear forces accordingly with focussed attention on deterrence and escalation management amidst the changing global nuclear landscape. The United State should never – will never- be left vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”
Note the lack of any mention of the role of U.S. nuclear weapons or declaratory policy. Insofar as the role of U.S. nuclear forces is discussed, it is done so in a single sentence on page 3: “We will maintain a robust and modern nuclear deterrent capable of addressing the strategic threats to our country…”
There’s also no nod to allies here, either. In many of my conversations in Europe and Asia over the last year, there’s been quite a bit of interest in what the Trump NDS would have to say about alliances and extended deterrence. Silence, I suppose, is not the worst outcome, especially given the spotlighting of active U.S. hostility toward European allies in the last few weeks amid the Greenland imbroglio. Some allies took solace in the fact that the NSS did include a sentence on nuclear weapons that did allude to some role in their defense: “We want the world’s most robust, credible, and modern nuclear deterrent, plus next-generation missile defenses—including a Golden Dome for the American homeland—to protect the American people, American assets overseas, and American allies” (emphasis added, NSS, pp. 3).
Close allied readers of the NDS, however, might find that the document does appear to have something to say about how the United States views their security interests. Page 8 of the NDS observes that what makes the Trump administration’s strategy “fundamentally different from the grandiose strategies” of the past is that this document is apparently tethered to “Americans’ practical interests.” The document continues:
‘It does not conflate Americans’ interests with those of the rest of the world—that a threat to a person halfway around the world is the same as to an American.”
Part of the very premise of extended deterrence is that the United States would treat threats to allied persons (and nations) halfway around the world the same as those to the U.S. homeland. This, naturally, has been a very difficult premise to render credible—hence much of the history of our alliance management efforts over the last seven-ish decades.
It doesn’t seem far-fetched to me that allies will be willing to believe what the Trump administration is telling them here. There’s actually much in this NDS that I find doesn’t correspond all that well to the president’s views of the world (for starters, I don’t think Trump knows what the first island chain is). This bit, however, does correspond to much of what we know about how this president reasons about allies. Here you have the United States, I think, stating rather openly that, actually, it would not be willing to trade “Paris for New York,” as De Gaulle once famously asked of Kennedy. As I’ve written elsewhere, the ripple effects of this will likely be severe.
So, there’s that on extended deterrence.
Through the rest of the document, there’s very little on nuclear matters. There’s considerable attention on Iran’s program, with the expected commitment to denying Tehran the bomb (this also got a lot of attention in the NSS). North Korea is acknowledged as a country “increasingly capable of threatening to the U.S. Homeland” with its nuclear forces (a view that’s hardly controversial now in the United States). Very little else; even China’s historic nuclear build-up is not discussed head on in any detail.
It’s probably the case that the classified NDS has more to say on some of these questions, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of attention to nuclear matters in the unclassified version. Insofar as this document communicates U.S. priorities, it suggests an administration deeply uninterested in nuclear matters and aloof, at best, toward allies.
nuclear-news 