Hegseth Declines To Say Whether the US Is Planning To Bomb Venezuela.

The Miami Herald reported on Friday that strikes could begin at any moment
by Dave DeCamp | November 2, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/11/02/hegseth-declines-to-say-whether-the-us-is-planning-to-bomb-venezuela/
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Saturday declined to comment on whether the US was planning to bomb Venezuela amid a major US military buildup in the Caribbean and frequent strikes on alleged drug boats in the waters of Latin America.
“Appreciate the question, but, of course, we would not share any amount of operational details about what may or may not happen,” Hegseth said in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, when asked if the US was preparing to strike inside Venezuela.
The Miami Herald reported on Friday that the US has made a decision to attack military targets inside Venezuela as part of a campaign against the government of President Nicolas Maduro, whom the US seeks to oust. The report said that the US strikes could begin within a matter of “hours or days.”
When asked by reporters on Friday if he was planning strikes inside Venezuela, Trump said “no,” but he was asked again on Sunday and declined to answer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security advisor and has been leading the push toward regime change in Venezuela, also denied the Miami Herald report.
“Your ‘sources’ claiming to have ‘knowledge of the situation’ tricked you into writing a fake story,” Rubio wrote on X in response to the report.
For weeks, multiple media outlets have been reporting that the US is considering launching strikes in Venezuela, and the US has built up a force in the region that’s well beyond what is needed to bomb small, defenseless boats. US officials have also made clear that the real goal of the campaign is regime change in Venezuela, something Rubio has wanted for many years.
A US aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, is also being deployed to the Caribbean, and the US has begun to run weekly bomber flights near the coast of Venezuela. Much of the military action and the leaks to the media are part of a psychological campaign aimed at getting Maduro to voluntarily step down or someone in his inner circle to turn on him, but it’s unlikely that will happen.
US amassing 16,000 troops off Venezuelan coast – Washington Post
1 Nov, 2025, https://www.rt.com/news/627242-us-amass-troops-venezuelan-coast/
The American forces in the area reportedly include eight Navy ships, a special operations vessel, and a nuclear-powered submarine.
The US is deploying a massive military contingent to an area near Venezuela, including 10,000 soldiers and 6,000 sailors, the Washington Post has reported. The move may indicate plans to expand regional operations.
The US has repeatedly accused Venezuela of aiding “narcoterrorists” and has imposed sweeping sanctions on the country. The American military has also attacked about a dozen vessels since September, claiming they were used by drug smugglers.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of “fabricating a new war” amid the continuing military buildup.
According to the Washington Post, eight US Navy warships, a special operations vessel, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine are already in the Caribbean. The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, expected to arrive next week, will reportedly bring with it three more military vessels, with a total of over 4,000 military personnel onboard.
Additionally, F-35 fighter jets are stationed at a US base in Puerto Rico, the Post reported, citing satellite images.
The arrival of the carrier group suggests Washington’s plans could extend beyond a counter-narcotics operation, Ryan Berg, the director of the Americas Program and the Center for Strategic & International Studies, told the outlet. He added that US President Donald Trump has about a month to make “a major decision” before the group would need to be redeployed.
Multiple media outlets have recently reported that the White House was weighing potential military actions in Venezuela. Senator Rick Scott told CBS last Sunday that Maduro’s “days are numbered.” The WaPo claimed on Thursday that Washington had already identified some targets, including military facilities allegedly used for drug-smuggling.
When asked about the reports on Friday, Trump said, “No. It’s not true.” Last month, Trump confirmed authorizing the CIA to carry out lethal covert operations in the region.
Trump’s bet on US nuclear buildout ropes in Japan

By TIMOTHY CAMA . 10/31/2025
President Donald Trump is eager for the United States to build large nuclear reactors again — with Japanese money.
Administration officials are pulling every lever they can. They’re using trade deals, pulling the China card, and even elbowing into the boardroom of the largest U.S.-based reactor maker: Westinghouse Energy.
“The world is wanting to go and
embrace nuclear power,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said last week.
“And guess who’s building their reactors? The Russians or the Chinese.”
The president and his loquacious Commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick,
unveiled two agreements during their trip to Asia this week that, at least
on paper, would lead to a nuclear buildout in the United States and could
boost U.S. reactor sales overseas. — One is a $550 billion investment
package folded into a U.S.-Japan trade deal. Under that, Japan will help
finance $80 billion worth of U.S. nuclear projects. — Under a second
deal, the Trump administration and Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse
effectively became business partners this week.
If government investment
leads to profits at Westinghouse, the deal opens the door to American
taxpayers getting a large equity stake in the company.
Politico 31st Oct 2025, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/10/31/trumps-bet-on-us-nuclear-buildout-ropes-in-japan-00631233
How could the US restart nuclear weapons testing?

President Trump wants to revive a military programme mothballed at the end of the Cold War so America can stand ‘on an equal basis’ with global rivals
Trump implied
that rival nuclear powers were carrying out tests and that it was crucial
for the United States to start “testing our nuclear weapons on an equal
basis”. Neither Russia nor China, America’s “big power rivals”, have
conducted nuclear tests since a moratorium was agreed.
The last American test was in 1992, Russia stopped in 1990 and China in 1996, the same year the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed. The only countries that have carried out nuclear tests since then have been North Korea, most recently in 2017, and India and Pakistan, which both conducted underground testing
in May 1998.
Times 30th Oct 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/us-nuclear-weapons-testing-trump-s08xq9hgm
Some 890 tons of Tepco nuclear fuel kept at Aomori reprocessing plant

Aomori – Nov 1, 2025,
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/11/01/japan/tepco-nuclear-fuel-aomori-plant/
Some 890 tons of spent nuclear fuel from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings are being stored at Japan Nuclear Fuel’s reprocessing plant under construction in Aomori Prefecture — the first time a specific amount of nuclear fuel at the plant from an individual company has been confirmed.
Also kept at the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho are about 180 tons of fuel from Japan Atomic Power.
Both numbers were included in the Aomori Prefectural Government’s answer dated Oct. 7 to a questionnaire from a civic organization in the prefecture. The prefecture’s answer was based on explanations from Tepco and Japan Atomic Power
The plant keeps a total of 2,968 tons of used nuclear fuel.
The plant, planned to be completed in fiscal 2026, will start to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel once it becomes operational.
Under the principle of the peaceful use of plutonium, the Japanese government has a policy of not possessing the radioactive material unless there are specific purposes for it such as use for uranium-plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, because it can be used to make nuclear weapons.
With none of the nuclear reactors at Tepco and Japan Atomic Power having restarted and neither companies having clear plans to start so-called pluthermal power generation using MOX fuel, there are concerns that a situation may occur in which Japan possesses plutonium without specific purposes.
In the prefecture’s answer to the questionnaire, Tepco said that it “plans to implement pluthermal power generation at one of its reactors based on a policy that it will consume plutonium definitely.”
The firm also said it assumes that some plutonium will be supplied to a nuclear plant of Electric Power Development, better known as J-Power, which is now being constructed in the town of Oma, Aomori Prefecture. The Oma plant is expected to use MOX fuel at all reactors.
“There is no change in our policy to use our plutonium with our responsibility,” Japan Atomic Power said.
Contacted by reporters, Tepco offered the same explanation as that given to the Aomori government.
Meanwhile, Japan Atomic Power said that it plans to conduct pluthermal power generation at the Tsuruga nuclear power station’s No. 2 reactor in Fukui Prefecture and at the Tokai nuclear plant in Ibaraki Prefecture, although when this would start has yet to be decided.
Danish Arbitration Court has decided against Greenland Minerals A/S case to develop uranium industry.

Energy Transition Minerals is an Australian company (formerly Greenland Minerals Limited)
On 28 October 2025, the Arbitration Court ruled on whether the case brought by Greenland Minerals A/S against Naalakkersuisut can be heard by an arbitration court. The Arbitration Court has decided that the issue of the right to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit cannot be brought before an
arbitration court and that the Danish state cannot be a party to the case.
The case was brought before the Arbitration Court by Greenland Minerals A/S on 22 March 2022. According to Greenland Minerals A/S’ claim,
Naalakkersuisut should be ordered to grant the company a permit to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit.
The case arose from the adoption of the Uranium
Act, which prohibits preliminary investigations, exploration and
exploitation of uranium. The Act prevents a permit for exploitation from
being granted in the company’s license area, as the uranium values exceed
the Uranium Act’s de minimis limit.
The Greenland Government was surprised that the company chose to bring the case before an arbitration court, as the Greenland Government’s discretionary decisions can only be brought before the courts, and the Greenland Government has maintained throughout the case that the arbitration court does not have jurisdiction to decide
the case. The arbitration court’s decision was therefore expected.
Naalakkersuisut 28th Oct 2025, https://naalakkersuisut.gl/Nyheder/2025/10/2810_voldgiftsretten
“It is unacceptable that the EDF tariff reform is being adopted quietly, to the detriment of the users”

With electricity bills reaching record highs and 7 million people facing
energy poverty, it’s time to acknowledge the failure of a model. Twenty
years of brutal energy sector liberalization have failed to bring about
either lower prices or the investment promised by private operators in
exchange for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity (ARENH).
Created in 2011 to allow alternative suppliers to purchase EDF’s nuclear
production at a fixed and highly advantageous price, this mechanism was
supposed to generate sustainably competitive offers. On the contrary, it
has led to instability, private rent-seeking, industrial fragmentation, and
debt for EDF.
Le Monde 29th Oct 2025,
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/10/29/il-est-inacceptable-que-la-reforme-des-tarifs-d-edf-soit-adoptee-discretement-au-detriment-des-usagers_6650111_3232.html
Ministry of Defence still unclear on cost of RAF nuclear jet plan, MPs say

“Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”
Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 F-35A jets
Christopher McKeon, Friday 31 October 2025
Ministers still do not know when RAF jets will be able to carry nuclear weapons or how much the project will cost, the Commons spending watchdog has found.
In a report published on Friday, the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had still not set out how much it would cost to operate new F-35A jets.
Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 of the jets, which could join the alliance’s airborne nuclear mission.
The committee said the project was still “at an early stage”, with the MoD “starting to understand” the requirements of being certified for the Nato nuclear mission.
The MoD told the committee that the F-35As were “20 per cent to 25 per cent cheaper” than the F-35Bs currently operated by the RAF and Royal Navy “and slightly cheaper to support”.
But with the additional training and personnel required to join the nuclear mission, the committee said it was a “reasonable assumption that this may end up proving more expensive”.
The MPs added that the MoD had yet to set out how long it would take to make the necessary arrangements for equipping the jets with nuclear weapons.
The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet the UK has ever possessed, and the MoD expects the overall programme to cost £57 billion over its 56-year lifespan.
That figure is already triple the original estimate, but the committee said it did not include the costs of personnel, infrastructure and fuel, with the National Audit Office (NAO) suggesting an overall cost of £71 billion.
In July, the NAO issued a wide-ranging criticism of the F-35 programme, saying its return on investment had been “disappointing” and its capability remained below the MoD’s expectations.
The watchdog also criticised severe personnel shortages and “short-term affordability decisions” that hindered the delivery of the aircraft and its full capabilities.
On Friday, the PAC reiterated many of these findings, accusing the MoD of “a pattern of short-term decision-making” that had led to increased costs.
The committee cited delays to investment in a facility to test the jet’s stealth capability, which saved £82 million in 2024-25 but added an extra £16 million to the overall cost; and delayed investment in infrastructure at 809 Naval Air Squadron until 2029, which both reduced capability and added almost £100 million in extra costs.
MPs also found the MoD had miscalculated the number of engineers needed per plane, as it had failed to take into account staff taking leave or performing other tasks.
And they questioned the department’s intention to declare the F-35 to be at full operating capability by the end of the year, despite still not having a missile to attack ground targets from a safe distance.
Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”
He added that the MoD had been “worryingly slow” to learn “basic lessons” from the project, and described its appraisal of the F-35’s overall cost as “unrealistic”.
Sir Geoffrey said: “The F-35 is the best fighter jet this nation has ever possessed. If it is to be wielded in the manner in which it deserves, the MoD must root out the short-termism, complacency and miscalculation in the programme identified in our report………………………….https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/raf-fighter-jets-f35a-nato-b2855616.html
Officials launch investigation after hazardous incident at shut-down nuclear plant: ‘Deeply concerning’
A government investigation got underway after radioactive water leaked from Scotland’s Dounreay nuclear site. In June 2024, NRS alerted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to “a potential leak of radioactively contaminated water from a carbon bed filter on the Dounreay site,” an agency spokesperson described, according to The National, a Scottish paper.
SEPA later confirmed a “small leak” that released different radioactive
substances, including Caesium-137 and alpha-emitting radionuclides. While NRS reported no increase in groundwater radioactivity downstream of the event, SEPA found the company had breached regulations and ordered a full review of its monitoring systems.
The Cool Down 29th Oct 2025, https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/dounreay-nuclear-site-radioactive-water-leak/
Starmer,Macron, Merz…3 unwise leaders degrading their economies while destroying Ukraine.

President Trump has largely ceased supplying weapons directly to Ukraine. But he’s cool about goosing US weapons builders’ profits by selling them to Europe’s Big 3 so they can take over squandering their treasure on an impossible, quixotic effort to defeat Russia.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL ,1 Nov 25
The UK’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Friedrich Merz are wildly unpopular. Starmer has the best approval rating at 13% followed by Macron at 11%. Merz is nearly invisible at 5%.
There are several reasons but likely tops is their insistence on continuing the lost US/NATO proxy war against Russia destroying Ukraine for nearly 4 years.
President Trump has largely ceased supplying weapons directly to Ukraine. But he’s cool about goosing US weapons builders’ profits by selling them to Europe’s Big 3 so they can take over squandering their treasure on an impossible, quixotic effort to defeat Russia. Trump, a realist on the war Biden made inevitable, wants out, not only on funding the war, but on endlessly funding Europe’s paranoia about a reconstituted Soviet empire. This is one foreign policy Trump is getting right.
Starmer, Macron and Merz are degrading their economies as they reduce critically needed social spending on the commons to fund a wildly unpopular war. No wonder far right, nationalistic political movements are nipping at their heels and may soon send them packing.
Europe has a pittance of America’s wealth to fund continuation of the war. Yet, the Starmer, Macron, Merz trio endlessly bleat that Ukraine can prevail, even get back its massive lost territory now forever part of Russia, if only they provide Ukraine more, more, more. They fear monger that Russia will come for them next unless they’re defeated in Ukraine. No responsible historian, political scientist or retired diplomat (without a job to protect) would support that delusional view.
Two things are certain. The economies and political stability of the UK, France, and Germany are being severely undermined by their leaders’ refusal to negotiate the war’s end, acknowledging Russia’s valid security concerns. Second, Ukraine descends deeper into failed state status, losing more cannon fodder and territory, every day the war grinds on.
What is not certain if Starmer, Macron and Merz do not come to their senses, is whether nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO can be avoided. All 3 need to be forced to watch ‘Forrest Gump’ to learn that ‘Stupid is as stupid does.
The Risky Movement to Make America Nuclear Again

As the licensing team dug in, Oklo couldn’t provide the supporting analysis for many of its basic safety assumptions
As the licensing team dug in, Oklo couldn’t provide the supporting analysis for many of its basic safety assumptions
A Silicon Valley startup called Oklo is leading the charge to bring nuclear power back to the US with small reactors. Its backers have wealth and political connections that could undermine nuclear safety.
Bloomberg, By Michael Riley,
When Oklo Inc., a nuclear power startup, applied in 2020 to operate its first reactor, the company rested largely on outsize ambition. Its MIT-educated co-founders, a married couple named Jacob and Caroline DeWitte, lived in a mobile home park in Mountain View, California, in space 38. Oklo, which had only 20 full-time employees, wanted to build small reactors across the country, transforming the way towns and industries are powered. To realize that dream, it needed the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to say the company’s design was safe.
Two years later, Oklo had failed to pass even the first step of the approval process. In 2022, after months of frustrating back and forth, the NRC concluded that the company didn’t provide verifiable answers to the most basic safety questions. The regulator denied the application. A former senior agency official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says Oklo “is probably the worst applicant the NRC has ever had.”
For Jake DeWitte, the denial was maddening. He still grows visibly agitated when recounting the moment. “They completely screwed up,” he says. By the end, Caroline says, the agency “became kind of malicious, frankly.”
In 2025, Oklo’s reactor design is still unlicensed. But, in a sign of how radically the safety landscape has changed for nuclear power, the company’s business promise seems bright. Oklo went public last year and now has a market value hovering around $20 billion. In May, Jake was in the White House when President Donald Trump signed four executive orders designed to herald a nuclear renaissance. “It’s a brilliant industry,” Trump said, DeWitte at his side.
The startup’s backers long had a Plan B: If Oklo couldn’t win approval from the agency charged with protecting the public from nuclear accidents, they would, essentially, go after the regulator, in much the way Uber Technologies Inc. and other Silicon Valley startups have obliterated regulatory roadblocks. One of the architects of Oklo’s attack-the-regulator strategy is a law professor-turned-venture capitalist with ties to the Koch empire. He says the public shouldn’t be worried.
The revival of nuclear power in the US has been predicted countless times since President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program rose from the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This version, though, is something never before seen. Rather than huge power stations built by engineering companies for giant utilities, a new breed of nuclear startup wants to commercialize reactors, some so small they could be carried on semitrucks, so mighty they could power the hungriest of artificial intelligence data centers. Not one of these so-called advanced reactors has yet to be built in the US, but their promise has touched off a dealmaking frenzy, with backing from tech giants including Amazon.com, Google, Meta Platforms and Microsoft. The US Department of Energy has announced a goal of having at least three of these reactors switched on by July 4 of next year.
Oklo’s power and influence in the MAGA era have let it seize the political moment
Oklo isn’t the most obvious company of the two dozen or so newcomers to have broken through as a front-runner. Bill Gates’ TerraPower LLC has been trying to develop an advanced reactor for almost two decades. Kairos Power LLC, backed by Google, has made quick progress through the government’s licensing process.
But Oklo’s power and influence in the MAGA era have let it seize the political moment. The company is backed by some of Silicon Valley’s most important leaders, including Sam Altman, co-founder of OpenAI. A former board member is now Trump’s secretary of energy. Critically, Oklo has capitalized on the deregulatory fever gripping Washington. The NRC, which became a target of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has lost at least 195 staff since January, and efforts to strip the agency of key powers are underway.
For a half-century, the NRC has been the watchdog of an industry built on some of the most dangerous technologies ever known. Yet Oklo and its backers say that its reactors will be so small and safe, little NRC oversight is needed.
Even a year ago, this proposition would have been absurd. Experts say advanced reactors are indeed safer in some respects: Because they’re a third or less the size of traditional reactors and aren’t cooled by water circulating under immense pressure, a serious accident is less likely to spread radioactive debris across a major populace. But for anyone nearby—workers operating the plant, say, or soldiers on a military base powered by one—the dangers could be substantial.
“All these nuke bros who know nothing about operating a reactor, they just want a free pass,” says Allison Macfarlane, former chairman of the NRC. “They can have their free pass, but then they will have an accident.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Transatomic’s collapse left venture capital’s tech titans looking for a new standard bearer in their drive to disrupt nuclear power.
In January 2018, some of the country’s richest and most powerful descended on the desert resort town of Indian Wells, California, for three days of hobnobbing over canapés and golf. They had come for the annual donor retreat established by the chemicals-and-refining billionaires Charles and David Koch; before the weekend was out, they had pledged to spend more than $400 million to support the Kochs’ political influence operation, which counted governors, senators and state legislative leaders as foot soldiers.
Among those attending was a law professor-turned-venture capitalist named Salen Churi. Co-founder of a new Koch-backed VC firm called Trust Ventures, Churi explained the firm’s novel strategy as he worked the target-rich room for potential investors: identify startups facing steep regulatory challenges; solve them through litigation, advocacy and political influence; and then watch the profits roll in.
“Imagine a startup able to tap into the know-how of Koch from Day 1,” Churi said, according to news coverage of his presentation. The company’s first big investment, in mid-2018, was in Oklo. (Another investor in 2018 was Rothrock; he invested in Oklo around the same time that Transatomic folded.)……………………………………………..
…………………………………………………….. Eighty feet high and fashioned from 1-inch-thick steel plating, the shiny silver dome of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II rises from the eastern Idaho sagebrush like a lost artifact of the Atomic Age. At one point, 52 test reactors of various types operated on this stretch of high desert. It’s the home of the Idaho National Laboratory, formerly known as Argonne-West, where nuclear power was born.
Nowadays, scientists, government officials, tourists and others have turned this site into a pilgrimage. (The filmmaker Oliver Stone paid a visit not long ago.) Some of them come to see or learn from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, or EBR-II, a sodium fast reactor that is considered by many to be the lab’s most successful attempt to revolutionize the way nuclear energy is created.
There’s a renewed belief that this long-forgotten technology—EBR-II was built six decades ago and decommissioned in the mid-1990s—holds the keys to a safer, more efficient nuclear industry. Adherents argue that the technology, unlike other reactors, is “passively safe”—so safe that in even some of the worst accident scenarios, a sodium fast reactor would shut down without human intervention.
Not far from the massive silver dome is a patch of government land where the DeWittes have staked their future. Little more than a sign and a couple of porta potties stashed amid the juniper bushes, this is where the two are planning to build Oklo’s reactor, Aurora, which they’ve described as a more modern version of the EBR-II. They have vowed that their reactor will share the same inherent safety characteristics.
Edwin Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the assumption that reactors like EBR-II are “passively safe” is misguided. “It’s gaslighting,” he says. Sodium fast reactors are notoriously difficult to operate, which accounts for the technology’s long history of accidents and meltdowns. Sodium leaks can create fires that spray a toxic sodium-oxide aerosol into the air. If the coolant comes into contact with water, hydrogen explosions can result in both the reactor itself and the power generation plant. And compared with light-water reactors, fast reactors leak neutrons that need extensive shielding to make them safe. “If something goes wrong, the potential for a Chernobyl-like escalating event is actually much higher than it is with light-water reactors,” Lyman says.
When Oklo submitted its first application to the NRC in 2020, the agency was under pressure from Congress and the industry to show it could license new reactors more efficiently. The agency’s licensing team was eager to begin what it called a Phase 1 review—essentially checking that the application is complete enough to move to a more rigorous scientific and safety evaluation. With an experienced company, Phase 1 usually takes about two months. “We thought we could get Oklo to that point in about six months,” says a former agency official familiar with the company’s application, who asked for anonymity to talk openly about the company’s application.
Major sticking points soon emerged. The company declared that, based on its extensive calculations, Aurora was one of the safest nuclear reactors in the world and there was no plausible accident that would result in a release of radiation into the environment. Yet the NRC staff identified important scenarios that Oklo didn’t appear to consider: What if undulating pipes from a sudden leak wrecked key systems? What if the seals of the reactor capsule failed, creating a pathway for radiation to reach the outside? The regulators also asked about the risk of flooding inside the reactor capsule, which the NRC said “may represent a potential criticality issue.” Nuclear experts say that’s a technical way of saying that the agency was worried about the possibility of an uncontrolled fission uncontrolled fission event, which could result in a dangerous steam explosion inside the reactor vessel.
As the licensing team dug in, Oklo couldn’t provide the supporting analysis for many of its basic safety assumptions, according to four officials who spoke to Businessweek about the application, as well as public NRC documents. In some cases, supporting files the company claimed to have were not available when the NRC tried to examine them, one official says.
“We needed the evidence that this reactor could be built and operated safely, and it just wasn’t forthcoming,” says one of the four officials.
Finally, in January 2022, the NRC denied Oklo’s application. By that point, the company had raised more than $25 million, and its dream of mass producing small nuclear reactors had seemed in reach. But at the NRC, the company never made it beyond Phase 1.
In a flashy video posted on YouTube last year, the DeWittes, clad in jeans, stroll across the high prairie near the Idaho National Laboratory. They’re introduced by a narrator whose tone mixes soothing and serious. “Meet the husband-and-wife engineering duo that discovered a game-changing technology buried in a government lab in Idaho,” the narrator says.
The six-and-a-half-minute video was published on the YouTube channel of a Utah-based organization called the Abundance Institute, identified on its website as “a mission-driven nonprofit focused on creating a space for emerging technologies.” In contrast to other pro-nuclear outfits including Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, the Abundance Institute has been ferocious in its criticism of the NRC. In January its CEO penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that labeled the regulator “lawless,” then followed up with social media posts declaring that it was time to abolish the agency.
What the videos and op-eds don’t disclose is that the Abundance Institute is Churi’s brainchild. He’s a co-founder and is listed as the institute’s treasurer in papers filed with the Utah secretary of state’s office. The same papers list, as an institute director, Derek Johnson. He’s a central player on the Kochs’ national political team and executive vice president at the Kochs’ umbrella group, Stand Together, which also published the Oklo video……………….
“The people who get one-cent electricity from nuclear don’t exist yet because we can’t give it to them yet,” Churi says. “We wanted to be the lobbyist for companies that don’t exist yet and for consumers who haven’t gotten the benefit of those technologies yet.”
The institute is so intertwined with the Koch family’s famed influence network that it’s hard to distinguish between the two. Many of its key employees, including the CEO, come from the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, sometimes called “Koch U of the West,” a reference to a similar Koch-funded outfit at George Mason University in Virginia. Churi listed CGO’s offices as his address in papers that the Abundance Institute filed with the state. (Christopher Koopman, the institute’s CEO, called that a “clerical error.”)
Emails and other documents obtained through public records requests show that the Abundance Institute effectively serves as a front for Churi’s attack-the-regulator mission. As his team dissected federal regulations, Churi spotted language that might offer an opening. In 1956 the Atomic Energy Commission determined that because any apparatus designed to carry out a nuclear fission chain reaction can affect the health and safety of the public, it needs a federal license. Nuclear startups could argue that their reactors are so small and safe that they don’t present any risk to the public—and therefore fall outside federal jurisdiction. It was a long-shot position on the science, but the right court might just buy it. Churi and the team went to work.
They began looking for a nuclear startup willing to be the public face of the challenge. And, because a major goal of the lawsuit was to shift oversight of small nuclear reactors from the NRC to the states, they recruited state attorneys general as lead plaintiffs.
For the first, they linked up with Bret Kugelmass, founder and CEO of Last Energy Inc., which boasts a reactor design using off-the-shelf components. Kugelmass has little to no experience in nuclear engineering—his last company used drones to map farmland—but he has a popular energy podcast and is close to the MAGA movement. One Oklo investor called him “like Elon in his take-no-prisoners approach to getting stuff done.”
For the second, Churi and the Abundance Institute targeted officials in Texas and Utah, two states where Churi spends much of his time and knows, he says, “a lot of folks who work in both politics and the AG offices.” In Utah, the Abundance Institute served as a conduit to those officials, leveraging the Koch family’s political clout as well.
According to emails obtained by Businessweek through a public records request, Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams and an aide met with Abundance Institute staff in the fall of 2024. Afterward, the aide wrote Utah Chief Deputy Attorney General Dan Burton, saying the institute was “gathering clients for a nationwide lawsuit against the NRC.” Then he added, “We think it would be worth you/the AG’s time to explore their proposal and determine whether it makes sense for Utah to join.”…………………………………………………..
As the team prepared to file its federal lawsuit, a second and potentially more direct path to gutting the NRC opened up. The country had just voted to send Donald Trump back to the White House.
In February 2023, Jake DeWitte flew spur of the moment to Denver in hopes of buying a Kia Telluride he’d found online. His trip changed the future of the company.
Denver happened to be the home base for Chris Wright, founder and CEO of the second-largest fracking company in North America, Liberty Energy Inc. …………………………….
The timing was propitious, and not only for Oklo. The buy-in—structured as a $10 million strategic investment by Liberty—was finalized just weeks before an announcement in June that one of Altman’s companies, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), would take Oklo public. Jake says Oklo extended its last VC round to allow Liberty to get in under the wire, making Liberty one of the last early investors before Oklo began trading on the New York Stock Exchange the following year, with an initial valuation of $850 million……………………………………………..
In his first departmental directive, issued in early February, Wright declared that “the long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch during President Trump’s administration.” The directive said that the Energy Department would work to enable the “rapid deployment” of next-generation nuclear technology.
Meanwhile, Trump began a slash-and-burn campaign to hollow out federal regulators, including nominally independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. By April, drafts of four executive orders targeting the regulation of nuclear energy began circulating…………………………………………………………………..

One person who did get input on the orders, by her own account, was Isabelle Boemeke, a Brazilian model and self-described nuclear energy influencer who goes by the moniker Isodope. Author of a book on nuclear power titled Rad Future, Boemeke is famous for mobilizing her social media followers in a successful drive to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant north of Los Angeles operating beyond its scheduled retirement. She’s also the spouse of Joe Gebbia, one of the founders of Airbnb and a prominent DOGE figure………………………………………….
……………………………………….. The federal lawsuit against the NRC was filed in December, with Texas and Utah as lead plaintiffs. By March the NRC had responded with a strongly worded motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Behind the scenes, something very different was happening. At the end of April, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, a partner at the boutique firm Boyden Gray named Michael Buschbacher, emailed his colleagues with good news. The NRC was ready to discuss a settlement and potentially agree to the plaintiffs’ biggest demand: the initiation of a rule-making process with the goal of exempting some small nuclear reactors from traditional NRC oversight and handing it to state agencies instead.
Meanwhile, the startups have another pathway to get their reactors to market quickly. In August, the Department of Energy announced a pilot program with the goal of deploying at least three untested reactors by next July 4, to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Oklo plans to license its first Aurora reactor through this program, the company says, although its reactor won’t be ready by then.
The company says it still plans to license future reactors via the NRC, but it will benefit from a radically changed agency. The executive orders signed in May push the agency to approve new reactor licenses within 18 months and to further expedite approval for any power plants already OK’d by the Defense Department or the Energy Department, two entities that have never licensed a commercial reactor. The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a panel of experts who weigh in on safety issues posed by new designs, had its remit pared back to the “minimum necessary” required by law.
………………………..both the NRC’s general counsel and its executive director of operations were pushed out, two people familiar with those moves said. Trump fired one commissioner in mid-June, and a second resigned a few weeks later.

………………………………………… At a recent meeting with NRC employees, DOGE representatives handed out black ballcaps emblazoned with “Make Nuclear Great Again” alongside the logo for another nuclear startup, Valar Atomics, according to a former agency official familiar with the meeting……………………………………………………………………………
By this summer, it was clear that Churi and his team had won, and not only for Oklo. Their efforts have created an opening that other nuclear startups—and their Silicon Valley backers—can now draft behind. One of those companies, Deep Fission, plans to operate small nuclear reactors a mile underground, a concept that’s never been tried anywhere. Valar Atomics, which joined the lawsuit against the NRC in April, claims on its website that you can safely hold spent nuclear fuel from its reactor for five minutes in the palm of your hand—something that nuclear experts say would quickly kill anyone who tries it. Both companies were also recently chosen for the Energy Department’s new accelerated licensing program………………….. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-30/silicon-valley-s-risky-plan-to-revive-nuclear-power-in-america?embedded-checkout=true
Trump’s Big Nuclear Reactor Push Raises Safety Concerns

1 October 2025, https://english.aawsat.com/features/5203506-trumps-big-nuclear-reactor-push-raises-safety-concerns
A huge nuclear deal announced by the Trump administration earlier this week provides a multi-billion-dollar incentive for the US government to issue permits and approvals for new Westinghouse reactors – an unprecedented structure that critics say poses environmental and safety risks.
Under the agreement with Westinghouse Electric’s owners, Canada-based Cameco and Brookfield Asset Management , the US government will arrange financing and help secure permits and approvals for $80 billion worth of Westinghouse reactors.
In return, the plan offers the US government a path to a 20% share of future profits and a potential 20% stake in the company if its value surpasses $30 billion by 2029.
The deal is one of the most ambitious plans in US atomic energy in decades, underscoring President Donald Trump’s agenda to maximize energy output to feed booming demand for artificial intelligence data centers.
But the financial incentives risk clouding regulatory scrutiny aimed at preventing nuclear accidents, according to safety advocates and regulatory experts. “The things that could go wrong are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima,” said Greg Jaczko, a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, pointing to three of the worst nuclear power accidents on record.
“All have causes tied to insufficient regulatory independence.”
The White House said concerns about safety were unfounded.
“The regulatory regime remains the same and is not compromised. There’s nothing in the deal about regulatory changes,” the White House said in an emailed statement. Westinghouse owner Cameco declined to comment. Brookfield and Westinghouse did not respond to messages requesting comment.
TD Cowen analysts told clients in a research note this week they expect Westinghouse to have 10 new large-scale reactors – enough gigawatts to power several million homes – under construction by 2030 as a result of the deal.
Typically, it takes around a decade for a new nuclear power plant to get built, largely due to the rigorous permitting requirements and enormous costs and complexities associated with construction.
Patrick White, a nuclear regulatory and technology expert at the Clean Air Task Force, said effective regulation did not need to be a slow or extended process and there were benefits to moving more efficiently.
“Ensuring that nuclear regulation is also timely and predictable is in the best interest of both companies and the public,” White said. Todd Allen, a nuclear expert at the University of Michigan, said the design of Westinghouse reactors is well established, but questioned how fast projects could progress.
“With that aggressive timeline, and demand for the reactors around the world, I wonder if there is a big enough workforce to handle all of these projects,” Allen said.
DELAYS TO PREVIOUS US PROJECT
Westinghouse’s last US-based nuclear project, building two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle power plant in Georgia, forced the company into bankruptcy protection in 2017.
The two reactors were about seven years behind schedule and cost about $35 billion, more than double the original estimate of $14 billion.
Patty Durand, director of nonprofit Georgians for Affordable Energy, has spent years analyzing that project and said she fears fast permitting would overlook the risks associated with climate change.
She said severe droughts have forced operators to curtail nuclear power in Europe and the United States to avoid overheating their reactors. Westinghouse also had a slew of problems related to the modular design of its AP1000 reactors, such as some parts’ dimensions being wrong when they arrived on site. The AP1000 would also be used for the new reactors, built from prefabricated parts and assembled on site.
Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he fears the Trump administration will exert too much power over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get the new reactors permitted.
“If the White House fully takes over the NRC and it is no longer at all independent, then it could be used just as a tool for sweeping deals for which the White House could accelerate licensing on its preferred projects regardless of their actual safety implications, and that’s a dangerous thing,” Lyman said.
Stealing $140 billion in Russian assets won’t change the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

while the determination of Ukraine to fight is unquestionable, the emotional belief in the west that this will overcome the enormous social and economic challenges the country faces in an extended attritional war with Russia is wildly misplaced.
A full 180 degree change in diplomatic course by Europe would require an acceptance that the war against Russia was unwinnable, and that Russia’s underlying concerns – namely Ukrainian neutrality – would finally have to be accepted as a political reality.
Better for EU leaders to accept this now although, of course, they won’t.
Ian Proud. Nov 01, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/stealing-140-billion-in-russian-assets?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=177688104&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Caught between a rock and a hard place, European leaders continue to deny the obvious realities of the dire situation in Ukraine, which will only worsen over time. Yet I see no evidence of any willingness to change course, despite the obvious political hazard they face and the increasingly grim forecast for Europe and for Ukraine should they continue to push an unwinnable war.
The war in Ukraine is now entirely dependent on the ability of European states to pay for it at a cost of at least $50bn per year, on the basis of Ukraine’s latest budget estimate for the 2026 fiscal year. Ukraine itself is bankrupt and has no access to other sources of external capital, beyond that provided by the governments sponsoring the ongoing war.
That then brings the conversation back to the expropriation of $140bn in assets currently frozen in Belgium which the Commission would like to use for a reconstruction loan. The term ‘reconstruction loan’ is itself disingenuous, on the basis that any expropriated Russian assets would not be used for reconstruction, but rather to fund the Ukrainian war effort. Indeed. Chancellor Merz of Germany recently suggested that the fund could allow Ukraine to keep fighting for another three years.
The most likely scenario, in the terrible eventuality that war in Ukraine did continue for another three years is that the Russian armed forces would almost certainly swallow up the whole of the Donbass region – comprising Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This – Ukraine’s departure from the Donbas – appears to be the basis of President Putin’s conditions for ending the war now, together with a Ukrainian declaration of neutrality and giving up any NATO aspirations. More likely, the Russian Armed forces might also capture additional swathes of land in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, and also in Dnipropetrovsk, where they have made recent incursions.
So, there is a strong likelihood, at the currently slow pace of the war effort in which Russia claims small pieces of land on a weekly basis, that three years from now Ukraine would have to settle for a peace that was even more disadvantageous to it than that which is available now, having lost more land, together with potentially hundreds of thousands of troops killed or injured.
Logically, European policymakers would be able to look into the future to see this grim predicament with clear eyes and encourage Zelensky to settle for peace now.
But European policy is driven by two key considerations. Firstly, an emotional belief that an extended war might so weaken Russia that President Putin was forced to settle on unfavourable terms. The idea of a strategic defeat of Russia – which is often spoken by European politicians – however, doesn’t bear serious scrutiny.
Russia doesn’t face the same considerable social and financial challenges that Ukraine faces. Its population is much larger and a wider conscription of men into the Armed forces has not been needed – Russia can recruit sufficient new soldiers to fight and, indeed, has increased the size of its army since 2022. Ukraine continues to resort to forced mobilisation of men over the age of 25, often using extreme tactics that involve busifying young men against their will from the streets.
Critically, Russia could likely continue to prosecute the war on the current slow tempo for an extended period of time without the need for a wider mobilisation of young men, which may prove politically unpopular for President Putin domestically. Yet, the longer the war continues, Ukraine will come under increasing pressure, including from western allies, to deepen its mobilisation to capture young men below the age of 25 to shore up its heavily depleted armed forces on the front line.
There has been considerable resistance to this so far within Ukraine. Mobilising young men above the age of 22 would prove unpopular for President Zelensky but it would also worsen Ukraine’s already catastrophic demographic challenge: 40% of the working age population has already been lost, either through migration or through death on the front line and that number will continue to go south, the longer the war carries on.
Russia’s financial position is considerably stronger than Ukraine’s. It has very low levels of debt at around 15% of GDP and maintains a healthy current account surplus, despite a narrowing of the balance in the second quarter of 2025. Even if Europe expropriates its frozen assets, Russia still has a generous and growing stock of foreign exchange reserves to draw upon, which recently topped $700bn for the first time.
Russia’s military industrial complex continues to outperform western suppliers in the production of military equipment and munitions. In the currently unlikely event that Russia started to fall into the red in terms of its trade – what commentators in the west refer to as destroying Russia’s war economy – it would still have considerable scope to borrow from non-western lenders, given the strength of its links with the developing world, aided by the emergence of BRICS.
Ukraine is functionally bankrupt because it is unable to borrow from western capital markets, on account of its decision to pause all debt payments. With debt expected to reach 110% in 2025, even before consideration of any loan backed by frozen Russian assets, it depends entirely on handouts from the west. Ukraine’s trade balance has continued to worsen throughout the war, reinforcing its dependence on capital injections from the west to keep its foreign exchange reserves in the black.
So while the determination of Ukraine to fight is unquestionable, the emotional belief in the west that this will overcome the enormous social and economic challenges the country faces in an extended attritional war with Russia is wildly misplaced.
So, let’s look at the rational explanation for Europe’s continued willingness to prolong the fight in Ukraine. The uncomfortable truth is that Europe’s political leaders have boxed themselves into this position because of a hard boiled determination not to concede to Russia’s demands in any peace negotiations. Indeed, there is a steadfast and immovable objection to talking to Russia at all, which has been growing since 2014.
However, across much of Europe, the political arithmetic is turning against the pro-war establishment with nationalist, anti-war parties gaining ground in Central Europe, Germany, France, Britain and even in Poland. And despite positive overtures made by President Trump towards negotiation with President Putin, Trumpophobia provides another brake on the European political establishment shifting its position.
So, changing course now and entering into direct negotiations with Russia would have potentially catastrophic consequences, politically, for European leaders, which they must surely be aware of. A full 180 degree change in diplomatic course by Europe would require an acceptance that the war against Russia was unwinnable, and that Russia’s underlying concerns – namely Ukrainian neutrality – would finally have to be accepted as a political reality.
On this basis, European politicians would face the prospect of explaining to their increasingly sceptical voters that their strategy of defeating Russia had failed, having spent four years of war saying at all times that it would eventually succeed. And that would lead potentially to internationalist governments falling across Europe starting in two years when Poland and France will again go to the polls, and in 2029 when the British and German governments will face the voters.
There are deeper issues too. An end of war would accelerate the process of admitting Ukraine into the European Union with potentially disastrous consequences for the whole financial basis of Europe. The European Commission will face the prospect of accepting that a two-tier Europe is inevitable, admitting Ukraine as a member without the financial benefits received by existing member states; for probably understandable reasons, this would cause widespread resentment within Ukraine itself, having sacrificed so much blood to become European, precipitating widespread internal dissent and possibly conflict in a disgruntled country with an army of almost one million. Alternatively, the European Commission would need to redraw its budget and face huge resistance from existing Member States, who would lose billions of Euros each year in subsidies to Ukraine.
Caught between hoping for a strategic defeat of Russia which any rational observe can see is unlikely, and accepting the failure of their policy, causing a widespread loss of power and huge economic and political turmoil, Europe’s leaders are choosing to keep calm and carry on. If they had any sense, the likes of Von der Leyen, Merz, Starmer or Macron would change tack and pin their hopes on explaining away their failure before the political tide in Europe evicts them all from power. But I see no signs of them having the political acumen to do that. So we will continue to sit and wait, while storm clouds grow ever darker over Europe.
Japan’s seismic history and the Westinghouse deal.

Letter to Ft.com : It almost feels impolite to point out some simple facts regarding your story “Westinghouse and US government strike $80bn nuclear reactor deal”. We are celebrating what Donald Trump hails as its “great friendship” between US and Japan, in addition to the election of our
first female prime minister, and an $80bn nuclear reactor deal — struck
by Washington and funded by Tokyo — all under the bright banner of what
appears to be a new era for our two countries.
Yet the simple fact remains,
whether we like it or not, that Japan is one of the most seismically active
countries in the world, which makes operating nuclear power plants far
riskier there than in the US.
The major nuclear players in both countries
— Westinghouse and Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) — have faced bankruptcy or financial collapse. All publicly available, reliable data shows that solar power is significantly cheaper than new nuclear energy. Both our
countries’ leaders have issued similarly nationalistic statements on green
energy — President Trump even signed executive orders on “Unleashing
American Energy”, implicitly pointing to a common foe, namely China.
Warren Buffett once wrote that “more money has been stolen with the point
of a pen than at the point of a gun”. These nuclear power plant projects
will consume billions of dollars over the coming decades — long after
today’s leaders have left office. Future generations are being made the
“collateral” for decisions taken today.
FT 31st Oct 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/77769193-1cb0-4d8e-807a-e57936617de9
EDF’s plan to decommission Hinkley Point B approved despite regulator’s concerns
31 Oct, 2025 By Tom Pashby
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has approved EDF’s plans for the
decommissioning of its Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, despite
wide-ranging concerns raised by organisations, including the Environment
Agency, which regulates the nuclear sector.
New Civil Engineer 31st Oct 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edfs-plan-to-decommission-hinkley-point-b-approved-despite-regulators-concerns-31-10-2025/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (180)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


