Authorities in St. Vincent and the Grenadines are investigating the grim discovery of an abandoned boat with 11 decomposing bodies found near Little Bay on Canouan Island on May 26, 2025, according to ABC.

The 45-foot vessel reportedly carried passports indicating the deceased may be from Mali, a West African country over 6,000 kilometers away.

The Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force called the incident “deeply concerning” and said they are working with both regional and international partners to identify the victims and establish how the boat ended up there.

This tragedy echoes previous cases involving West African migrants attempting dangerous Atlantic crossings.

In January 2025, a similar vessel was found off St. Kitts and Nevis with 19 bodies, some carrying Malian documents. In May 2021, another boat from Mauritania, containing over a dozen deceased men, was discovered near Trinidad and Tobago. Investigators believe those men had tried to reach Spain’s Canary Islands but were instead swept off course.

ABC writes that the Atlantic route remains highly dangerous, driven by factors such as political instability and economic hardship in countries like Mali. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees notes that migrants often target the Canary Islands, but ocean currents and limited navigational skills can push them far from their intended destination.

Authorities continue to investigate the Canouan case, determined to understand how this tragedy unfolded.

Following days of frenzied speculation that OPEC+ may go so far as to start another global price war similar to the Saudi armada in March 2020 which eventually sent WTI crude prices to a negative $45, however briefly, today's decision was positively tame: OPEC+ agreed to surge oil output for the third month in a row, despite mounting reservations from key member Russia, doubling down on a historic policy shift that has sent crude prices sinking.

According to a statement on the OPEC website, the cartel of oil-exporting nations and several hangers on agreed during a video conference on Saturday to add 411,000 barrels a day to the market in July. The hike matches increases scheduled for May and June, marking a radical reversal from defending prices to actively driving them lower, largely in response to Kazakhstan chronically and unapologetically breaching its quota.

“OPEC+ isn’t whispering anymore,” said Jorge Leon, an analyst at Rystad Energy A/S, who previously worked at the OPEC secretariat. “May hinted, June spoke clearly, and July came with a megaphone.”

Officials said the supply hikes reflect Saudi desire to punish over-producing members like Kazakhstan and Iraq, recoup market share lost to US shale drillers and other rivals, and satisfy President Donald Trump’s desire for cheaper oil, even if it leads to - well - cheaper oil, and even steeper budget deficits for the country that exports 10 million barrels of oil per day and has an all-in breakeven price around $90.

The hikes will offer temporary relief to consumers as the northern hemisphere goes into its peak demand season, while also helping central banks grappling with stubborn inflation. Yet the market impact creates financial peril for oil producers around the world, which could be facing a period of prolonged low prices, followed by much higher prices as producing infrastructure suffers from disuse. 

What was most notable about this latest production hike is that, according to Bloomberg, several members expressed reservations during Saturday’s meeting about the speed with which OPEC+ was raising production. Russia, Algeria and Oman wanted a pause in the increases, according to delegates.

The difference in views between Moscow and Riyadh, the cartel’s two most powerful members, will come back into play on July 6, when they meet again to discuss output levels for August.

In April oil briefly tumbled to a four-year low under $60 a barrel after OPEC+ first unexpectedly announced they would bolster output by triple the scheduled amount. The move came even as faltering demand and Trump’s trade war were already crushing the market.  This was followed by a second hike announcement one month later, and now a third one.

While Brent futures have since recovered to trade near $64 a barrel, the IMF estimates the Saudis need prices above $90 to cover the lavish spending plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The kingdom is contending with a soaring budget deficit, and has been forced to cut investment on flagship projects such as the futuristic city, Neom.

However, thanks to earlier Reuters leaks, the markets is likely to take Saturday’s agreement as positive because ahead of today's announcement “there were some concerns of a larger increase,” said Giovanni Staunovo, a commodity analyst at UBS, referring to Reuters reports that OPEC+ was considering even bigger output hikes.

Meanwhile, if Riyadh’s strategy is to discipline the cartel’s quota cheats through a “controlled sweating,” it doesn’t seem to be working. Kazakhstan, the most blatant offender, continues to exceed its limits by several hundred thousand barrels a day and has publicly stated that it has no plans to atone. Energy Minister Yerlan Akkenzhenov told reporters on Thursday that the country can neither enforce cutbacks on international corporate partners, or dial back at state-run fields. Which is why we recently speculated that if one or more of its peers wishes to teach Kazakhstan a painful lesson, then the Caspian Sea pipeline which carries most of Kazakh oil exports courtesy of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, is probably sweating bullets right now.

With Kazakhstan chronically abusing its OPEC+ quota, and with 80% of Kazakh oil reaching the world via the CPC pipeline, what are the odds CPC gets Nordstreamed? pic.twitter.com/xgQ0QGlkMJ

But while Kazakhstan has so far refused to budge, the price downturn is taking a clear toll in America’s shale oil heartlands, where companies like Diamondback Energy Inc. say production has peaked, despite Trump’s promise the country would “drill, baby, drill” in a new energy boom.

With the hike scheduled for July, OPEC+ will be just over halfway through a road map for reviving 2.2 million barrels a day of output it had idled in recent years, a process that was previously planned to last until late 2026 yet which depends largely on how much of a stimulus China will finally unleash. The group will decide in the coming months how quickly to restore the remainder of supplies it’s still withholding from the market.

For some analysts, increasing supply is entirely logical. Demand will rise over the next few months in the US as drivers take to the roads for summer vacations, and also in the Middle East, where peak use of air conditioning means some barrels will be consumed domestically.

“Fundamentals in the right-here, right-now are strong — inventories are very low,” Amrita Sen, director of research at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd., said in a Bloomberg television interview before the meeting. “It is a good time for OPEC+ to add barrels to the market, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t.”

Nonetheless, further price losses may be in store. JPMorgan forecasts that Brent futures will sink into the “high $50s” later this year as the cartel’s hikes contribute to a global supply glut of more than 2 million barrels a day.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Sirius XM host Megyn Kelly has called out the FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino for not being “fully transparent” when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Both have claimed that they now believe Epstein did kill himself and that there is no evidence of foul play as far as his death goes.

Bongino revealed yesterday that the FBI has video that it intends to release showing that no one else entered Epstein’s cell when he died.

Bongino noted, however, that the footage doesn’t show Epstein at all, prompting many to conclude it will not prove or disprove anything.

While interviewing journalist Glenn Greenwald, Kelly pondered, “What’s happening? Because it doesn’t take that long to clean up quote clean up surveillance video from one camera of one cell.”

“I’m not sure what’s happening here. I trust Dan. I don’t know Kash as well, but I trust Dan. But I’m not sure we’re getting the straight scoop,” Kelly added.

She continued, “It’s starting to smell. When Dan and Kash gave a joint interview, and they were like ‘he committed suicide,’ they looked like hostages.”

“They have the disadvantage of us having heard countless hours of Dan, in particular, speaking extemporaneously and from the heart, and he is an honest guy, but there’s certain limits to how honest you can be when you’re holding these positions,” the host further noted.

“And I had the same reaction that a lot of people had, which is, he looks like he’s not being fully transparent. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?” Kelly asked.

She further asserted that the “best theory” she has heard is “that it’s something having to do with Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to intelligence, and that would be something they’d have to keep covered potentially, and they can’t say it.”

“They can’t be as transparent as they like to be,” Kelly reiterated.

Watch:

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World

• The world economy is facing a predicted contraction due to physical limits related to resource extraction and diminishing returns in various areas, including energy and minerals.

• Current economic indicators, such as high debt levels, falling oil and coal production, and rising inflation, suggest an impending downturn that will affect global living standards and government stability.

• As existing economic systems falter, new economic models are expected to emerge, though the transition period will likely be marked by financial instability, job losses, and a decrease in overall prosperity.

I predict that the world economy will shrink in the next 10 years. I think that this is bound to happen because of energy and debt limits the world economy is hitting. There are a variety of other factors involved, as well.

In this post, I will try to describe the physics-based limits that the economy is facing, related to diminishing returns of many kinds. The problem we are facing has sometimes been called “limits to growth,” or “overshoot and collapse.” Such changes tend to lead to a loss of “complexity.” They are part of the way economies evolve. I would also like to share some ideas on the changes that are likely to occur over the coming decade.

[1] The world economy is a tightly integrated physics-based system, which is experiencing diminishing returns in far more areas than just oil supply.

When extraction of a mineral takes place, usually the easiest (and cheapest) portion of the mineral deposit is extracted first. After the most productive portion is removed, the cost of extraction gradually increases. This process is described as “diminishing returns.” Generally, more energy is required to extract lower quality ores.

The economy is now reaching diminishing returns in many ways. All kinds of resources are affected, including fossil fuels, uranium, fresh water, copper, lithium, titanium, and other minerals. Even farmland is affected because with higher population, more food is required from a similar amount of arable land. Additional-cost efforts such as irrigation can increase food supply from available arable land.

The basic problem is two-fold: rising population takes place while the easiest to extract resources are depleting. The result seems to be Limits to Growth, as modeled in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth.” Academic research shows that problems such as those modeled (sometimes referred to as “overshoot and collapse”) have been extremely common throughout history.

Precisely how this problem unfolds varies according to the specifics of each situation. Growing debt levels and increasing wage disparity are common symptoms before collapse. Governments become vulnerable to losses in war and to being overthrown from within. Epidemics tend to spread easily because high wage disparity leads to poor nutrition for many low-wage workers. Dr. Joseph Tainter, in his book, “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” describes the situation as the loss of complexity, as a society no longer has the ability to support some of the programs it previously was able to support.

At the same time the existing economy is failing, the beginnings of new economies can be expected to start. In some sense, economies “evolve,” just as plants and animals evolve. New economies will eventually replace existing ones. These changes are a necessary part of evolution, caused by the physics of the biosphere.

In physics terms, economies are dissipative structures, just as plants, animals, and hurricanes are dissipative structures. All dissipative structures require energy supplies of some type(s) to grow and remain away from a dead state. These structures do not “live” endlessly. Instead, they come to an end and are often replaced by new, slightly different, dissipative structures.

[2] Over the next 10 years, the general direction of the economy will be toward contraction, rather than growth.

There are many indications that the world economy is hitting a turning point because of rising population and diminishing returns with respect to resource extraction. For example:

[a] Debt levels are very high in the US and other countries. A rising debt level can temporarily be used to pull an economy forward without adequate energy supplies because it indirectly gives workers and businesses more spendable income. This income can be used to work around the lack of inexpensive energy products of the preferred types in a variety of different ways:

• It can allow consumers to afford a higher price for existing energy products, if the additional funds get back to customers as higher incomes or lower taxes.
• It can allow businesses to find more efficient ways of using resources, such as ramping up international trade or building more efficient vehicles.
• It can allow the development of new energy products, such as nuclear power generation and electricity from wind and solar.

What we are finding now is that these new approaches tend to encounter bottlenecks of their own. For example, oil supply is sufficiently constrained that the current level of international trade no longer seems to be feasible. Also, wind and solar don’t directly replace oil; electricity based on wind turbines and solar panels can lead to blackouts. Furthermore, diminishing returns with respect to oil and other resources tends to get worse over time, leading to a need for ever more workarounds.

If at some point, extraction becomes more constrained and workarounds fail to provide adequate relief, added debt will lead to inflation rather than to hoped-for economic growth. Higher inflation is the issue that many advanced economies have been struggling with recently. This is an indication that the world has hit limits to growth.

[b] Because of low oil prices, companies are deciding to cut back new investments in extracting oil from shale, and likely elsewhere.

Figure 1. Brent equivalent oil prices, in 2024 US dollars, based on a combination of indications through 2023. Sources include historical oil prices in 2023$ from the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute; the increase in average Brent spot price from 2023 to 2024, published by the US EIA; and the US Consumer Price Index for Urban consumers.

Figure 1 shows that oil prices rise and fall; they don’t rise endlessly. They rose after US oil production hit its first limits in 1970, but this was worked around by ramping up oil production elsewhere. Prices rose in the 2003 to 2008 period and then fell temporarily due to recession. They returned to a higher level in 2011 to 2013, but they have settled at a lower level since then.

One factor in the price decline since 2013 has been the production of US shale oil, adding to world oil supply. Another factor has been growing wage disparity, as workers from rich countries have indirectly begun to compete with workers from low-wage countries for many types of jobs. Low-wage workers cannot afford cars, motorcycles, or long-distance vacations, and this affordability issue is holding down oil demand.

US oil production from shale is in danger of collapsing during the next few years because prices are low, making new investment unprofitable for many producers. In fact, current prices for oil from shale are lower than shown on Figure 1, partly because US prices are a little lower than Brent, and partly because prices have fallen further in 2025. The recent price available for US WTI oil is only about $62 per barrel.

[c] World per capita coal production has fallen since 2014. A recent problem has been low prices.

Figure 2. World coal production through 2023 based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

Transportation costs are a major factor in the delivered price of coal. The reduced production of coal is at least partly the result of coal mines near population centers getting mined out, and the high cost of transporting coal from more distant mines. Today’s coal prices do not seem to be high enough to accommodate the higher costs relating to diminishing returns.

[d] In theory, added debt could be used to prop up oil and coal prices, but debt levels are already very high.

Besides the problem with inflation, mentioned in point [a], there are problems with debt levels becoming unmanageably high.

Figure 3. Figure from page 10 of The Long-Term Budget Outlook 2025 to 2055, published in March 2025 by the US Congressional Budget Office.

Figure 3 shows US government debt as a ratio to GDP. If we look at the period since 2008, there was an especially large increase in debt at the time of the 2007-2009 Financial Crisis and the 2020 Pandemic. The debt level has become so high that interest on the debt is likely to require tax revenue to rise endlessly. The underlying problem is needing to pay interest on the huge amount of outstanding debt.

Putting together [a], [b], [c], and [d], the world has a huge problem. As the world economy is currently organized, it is heavily dependent on both oil and coal. Oil is heavily used in agriculture and in transportation of all kinds (cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships). Coal is especially used in steel and concrete making, and in metal refining. We don’t have direct replacements for coal and oil for these uses. Wind and solar are terribly deficient at their current state of development.

The laws of physics tell us that, given the world’s current infrastructure, a reduction in the availability of both crude oil and coal will lead to cutbacks in the production of many kinds of goods and services around the world. Thus, we should expect that GDP will contract, perhaps for a long period, until workarounds for our difficulties can be developed. Today’s wind turbines and solar panels cannot solve the problem for many reasons, one of which is that fact that production and transport of these devices is dependent upon coal and oil supplies.

Thus, without adequate oil and coal to meet the needs of the world’s growing population, the world economy is being forced to gradually contract.

[3] Overall living standards can be expected to fall rather than rise during the next decade.

A recent article in the Economist shows the following chart, based on an analysis by the United Nations:

Figure 4. Chart showing global average “Human Development Index,” as calculated by the United Nations, in the Economist.

Figure 4 shows the trend in the Human Development Index as level in 2023-24. I expect that the trend will gradually shift downward in 2024-2025 and beyond. Modern advances, such as the availability of potable water in homes and the availability of electricity 24 hours per day, will become increasingly less common.

The Economist article displaying Figure 4 notes that, so far, most of the drop in living standards has happened in the poorer countries of the world. These countries were hit harder by Covid restrictions than rich countries. For example, the drop in tourism had a greater impact on less advanced countries than on rich countries. Poor countries were also affected by a decline in export orders for luxury clothing.

Outside of poor countries, young people are already finding it difficult to find jobs that pay well. They are often burdened with debt relating to advanced education, making it difficult for them to have the same standard of living that their parents had. This trend is likely to start hitting older citizens, as well. Jobs will be available, but they won’t pay well. This problem will affect both young and old.

[4] Governments will be especially vulnerable to cutbacks.

History shows that when overshoot and collapse occur, governments are likely to experience severe difficulties, indirectly because many of their citizens are getting poorer. They require more government programs, but if wages tend to be low, the taxes they pay tend to be low, too.

Unfortunately, the kinds of cutbacks being undertaken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are very much necessary to get payments by the US government down to a level that can be supported by taxes. Regardless of how successful the current DOGE program is, I expect a huge reduction in the number of individuals on the payroll of the US government, perhaps by 50% to 75%, in the next 10 years. I also expect major cutbacks in the funding for outside organizations, such as universities and the many organizations DOGE has targeted.

At some point, the US government will need to reduce or eliminate many types of benefit payments made now. One approach might be to try to send many kinds of programs, such as job loss protection, Medicaid, and Medicare, back to the states to handle. Of course, the states would also have difficulty paying for these benefits without huge tax increases.

[5] Ten years from now, universities and colleges will enroll far fewer students.

I expect that university enrollments will fall by as much as 75% over the next 10 years, partly because government funding for universities is expected to fall. With less funding, tuition and fees are likely to be even higher than they are today. At the same time, jobs for university graduates that pay well will become less available. These considerations will lead fewer students to enroll in four-year programs. Shorter, more targeted education teaching specific skills are likely to become more popular.

There will still be some high-paying jobs available, requiring university degrees. One such area may be in finding answers to our energy and resource problems. Such research will likely be carried out by a smaller number of researchers than are active today because some current areas of research will be discarded as having too little potential benefit relative to the cost involved. Any approach considered will need to succeed with, at most, a tiny amount of government funding.

High paying jobs may also be available to a few students who plan to be the “wheeler-dealers” of the world. Some of these wheeler-dealer types will want to be the ones founding companies. Others will want to run for public office. They may be able to succeed, as well. They may want to study specialized tracks to advance their career goals. Or they may want to choose institutions where they can make contacts with people who can help them in pursuing their career goals.

For most young people, I expect that four-year university degrees will increasingly be viewed as a waste of time and money.

[6] In a shrinking economy, debt defaults will become an increasing problem.

A growing economy is very helpful in allowing financial institutions to prosper. With growth, future earnings of businesses tend to be higher than past earnings. These higher earnings make it possible repay both the borrowed amount and the required interest. With growth, there is little need to lay off employees. Thus, the employees have a reasonable chance to repay mortgage loans and car loans according to agreed-upon terms.

If an economy is shrinking, overhead becomes an ever-larger share of total revenues. This makes profits harder to achieve and may make it necessary to lay off employees. These laid-off employees are more likely to default on their outstanding loans. As debt defaults rise, interest rates charged by lenders tend to rise to compensate for the greater default risk. The higher interest rates make debt repayment for future borrowers even more difficult.

All these issues are likely to lead to financial crises, as debt defaults become more common.

[7] As debt defaults rise, banks tend to fail. This can lead to hyperinflation or deflation.

In a shrinking economy, the big question when banks fail is, “Will governments bail out the banks?”

If governments bail out the failing banks, there is a tendency toward inflation because the bailouts increase the money supply available to citizens, but not the quantity of goods available for purchase. If enough banks fail, the tendency may be toward hyperinflation–way too much money available to purchase very few goods and services.

If no government bailouts are available, the tendency is toward deflation. Without bailouts, the problem is that fewer banks are available to lend to citizens and businesses. As a result, fewer people can afford to buy homes and vehicles using debt, and fewer businesses can take out loans to purchase needed supplies. These changes lead to less demand for finished goods. This change in demand can indirectly be expected to affect commodity prices, as well, including oil prices. With low prices, some suppliers may go out of business, making any supply problem worse.

Regardless of whether bailouts are attempted or not, on average, citizens can be expected to be getting poorer and poorer as time goes on. This occurs because with a shrinking economy, fewer goods and services will be made. Unless the population shrinks at the same rate, individual citizens will find themselves getting poorer and poorer.

[8] Expect more tariffs and more conflicts among countries.

Without enough oil for transportation, the quantity of imported goods must be cut back. A tariff is a good way of doing this. If one country starts raising tariffs, the temptation is for other countries to raise tariffs in return. Thus, the overall level of tariffs can be expected to rise in future years.

Without enough goods and services for everyone to maintain their current standard of living, there will be a definite tendency for more conflict to occur. However, I doubt that the result will be World War III. For one thing, the West seems to have inadequate ammunition to fight a full-scale conventional war. For another, the nuclear bombs that are available are valuable for providing fuel for our nuclear power plants. It makes no sense to use them in war.

[9] Expect an increasing share of empty shelves, as time goes on.

High tech goods are especially likely to disappear from shelves. Replacement parts for automobiles may also be difficult to find, especially before an aftermarket of locally manufactured parts appears.

[10] Interest rates are likely to stay at their current level or increase to a higher level.

The high level of borrowing by governments and others makes lenders reluctant to lend unless the interest rates are high. It should also be noted that current interest rates are not high relative to historical standards. The world has been spoiled in recent years with artificially low interest rates, made possible by Quantitative Easing and other manipulations.

[11] Clearly, this list is not exhaustive.

The world economy has gone through two major disruptions in recent years, one in 2008, and one in 2020. Very unusual changes such as these are quite possible again.

We don’t know how soon new economies will begin to evolve. Eric Chaisson, a physicist who has researched this issue, says that there is a tendency for ever more complex, energy-dense systems to evolve over time. This would suggest that an even more advanced economy may be possible in the future.

By Brian Martucci of UtilityDive

Executive Summary:

• The White House wants to deploy 300 GW of net new nuclear capacity by 2050 and have 10 large reactors under construction in the U.S. by 2030 while expanding domestic nuclear fuel supplies, according to an executive order signed by President Trump.
• Trump signed three other orders on Friday to accelerate Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews of reactor license applications and reconsider strict NRC radiation limits; expand departments of Energy and Defense roles in nuclear power plant licensing and siting; and speed up deployment of new test reactors.
• Nuclear power advocates hailed the orders as a boon for the industry, but warned that staff cuts at NRC and DOE could slow progress. A representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists said the proposed reforms would make the public less safe.

Shares of publicly-traded advanced nuclear and reactor fuel companies have soared, suggesting investors see Trump’s orders as more than just words on paper. 

Oklo, the advanced reactor developer previously chaired by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, was up more than 20% since Friday afternoon. Oklo’s shares got another boost Tuesday morning as it announced a design and development partnership with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power to accelerate deployment of its Aurora powerhouses.

Shares of small modular reactor developer NuScale and uranium suppliers Centrus Energy and Uranium Energy also rose more than 20% in Friday and early Tuesday trading.

Trump’s “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” executive order called on Wright and other cabinet secretaries to develop a national policy for spent nuclear fuel management. The order singles out recycling and reprocessing activities that could benefit companies like Oklo, which plans to build fuel reprocessing capabilities and is developing reactors that can run on recycled fuel.

Another order, “President Donald J. Trump Deploys Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” calls on Wright “to release at least 20 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium into a readily available fuel bank for private sector projects operating nuclear reactors to power AI infrastructure at DOE sites.” 

Congress last year banned Russian uranium imports from 2028, cutting off a key supply of HALEU in particular and adding urgency to ongoing federal efforts to expand domestic supplies. 

“Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” also calls for the DOE Loan Programs Office to prioritize support for construction of new large reactors and 5 GW of power uprates to existing reactors by 2030. It specifically mentions support for “completing construction of nuclear reactors that was prematurely suspended,” signaling possible LPO support for the completion of the two unfinished AP1000 reactors at Santee Cooper’s VC Summer site in South Carolina.

Recent changes at DOE could undermine that goal, Nuclear Innovation Alliance President and CEO Judi Greenwald said in a statement.

“Recent DOE staffing reductions and proposed budget cuts undermine the Department’s efforts and make it harder to implement these executive orders,” Greenwald said. “We urge the Administration and Congress to adequately resource and staff DOE to meet this moment.”

Greenwald said proposed NRC process changes in another executive order, “President Donald J. Trump Directs Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” while well-intentioned, could also prove counterproductive. 

“NIA has long thought it is important that NRC improve the efficiency of its activities,” she said. “However …[o]ur assessment is that NRC is already making significant progress on reform in compliance with congressional direction including the 2024 ADVANCE Act. It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”

Greenwald added that the “effectiveness, efficiency and independence” of the NRC is essential for public confidence in nuclear power and for ongoing efforts to commercialize and export nuclear technology.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was more blunt in a statement that also criticized the administration’s proposal to involve other federal departments in nuclear reactor siting, licensing and fuel supply.

“The U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” Lyman said. “By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of millions.”

Setting aside potential safety risks, involving the departments of defense and energy could cause needless confusion for nuclear technology developers, said Atomic Canyon CEO Trey Lauderdale.

“New capabilities for the Department of Defense and DOE to license and oversee projects could actually create additional red tape as companies navigate between three new potential oversight bodies instead of one,” Lauderdale said.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

Recently, President Donald Trump has escalated his struggle with Harvard University.

Remember what the issues were.

Harvard had not really followed the letter of the law according to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which it and the University of North Carolina had lost.

In other words, they were, by court order, to stop giving preference in admissions, in hiring, in promotion, in retention on the basis of race, gender, etc., what we would call DEI. Harvard has been skirting that. And I think the data’s pretty clear how they have and no question that they’ve been doing it.

Second, they have also been getting a lot of money from foreign governments, not always fully accounted for, that is reported to the Department of Education, specifically Communist China and Qatar, over the years.

You could make the argument that there have been, in the past, graduations, dorms that have a racial basis, almost a segregation element to them.

You can make the argument that they don’t fully honor the First Amendment when you have guest speakers. Sometimes when they want to give a presentation at a formal lecture or even an informal class, students—while they may be officially discouraged from it—they are allowed, de facto, to shout the speaker down or to protest.

I think there’s no question that there is a climate of antisemitism throughout Harvard. Recently, two Harvard students who assaulted a Jewish student—one of whom was kind of rewarded with a $65,000 honorarium through the auspices of the law school, another one was given an honorific title at a graduation at the Divinity School of marshal. That sent the wrong message.

What I’m getting at is there was a lot of cause for Donald Trump to suggest, “I don’t need this, the country doesn’t need this.” But in his bill of complaints that were contingent on Harvard making compromises, he also got into elements of instruction, curriculum, and hiring.

He said, “Why are you hiring people from only one point of view?” Which I think is indisputable. Very few conservatives. Or one particular take on the American history, i.e., negative. That prompted the Council on Higher Education and other venues that have published it to solicit letters from people who would be called center-right—some of my colleagues at Hoover. And they objected to what Donald Trump’s add-ons were. And I think that’s reflected in The Wall Street Journal column by Jason Riley.

Essentially, they’re saying: We understand when Harvard’s clearly violating laws or charging too much for individual research grants—60% overhead. But now you’re entering the inner domain of the Harvard complex and you’re trying to micromanage and that’s wrong.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t know whether my colleagues and friends on the right have characterized it the way in which the argument is coming from the Trump administration.

They are saying, “This is analogous to immigration. When somebody is a guest and applies to come here in a visa, that’s an invitation. And we don’t have to give reasons why we don’t want a particular person to come to the United States. What the federal government does with its money vis-a-vis private education is kind of like an invitation. They invite us to give them money. And sometimes we don’t wanna do it. Maybe we say, ‘We don’t like Harvard. We like Fresno State.’ And we don’t have to give you a reason at all because it’s not a requirement. It’s a privilege. Some colleges like Hillsdale don’t take any money. They don’t want us to give them money.”

And so, I think the argument from the administration that maybe our right-wing friends are missing is not that the Trump administration doesn’t have a right to go in and micromanage. They’re just saying, “I don’t really wanna give Harvard any money. They’ve got $53 billion. They’re private. They’re not public institutions. But you know, if they ask us and they want money, then we have to look at why we would give it to them.”

And it’s kind of like Mr. Smith coming from Korea or Mr. Jones coming from Sweden. We look at them and we don’t really think they add to the Americans. So, we don’t have an invitation.

It’s kind of like foreign aid. Maybe Denmark wants foreign aid. Maybe Ghana wants foreign aid. And we look at it and then, we’re under no—we can say, “Well, Denmark, you have to give us Greenland—if we want—before we give you foreign aid.” We’re under no requirement to explain every decision we make for an optional gift.

So we would apply that logic. I think that’s what the Trump administration is doing: “Harvard, here’s some money. We don’t really care if you want it or not. But if you do want it, we would suggest that you broaden your curriculum, you give both points of view, and just try to hire more conservatives to balance out. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t worry about it. We’ll just give the money to trade school.”

This is as simple as that.