SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Tom Clements, (803) 834-3084, (803) 240-7268 (cell), tclements@foe.org
Katherine Fuchs, (202) 222-0723, kfuchs@foe.org
Key decisions about the Department of Energy's program on the disposal of surplus weapons plutonium face additional significant delays, according to documents released by the department. The delays mean that the fate of the troubled program to fabricate plutonium fuel, known as mixed oxide fuel or MOX, from surplus weapons material faces new uncertainties and will not be determined until well into 2014.
Key decisions about the Department of Energy's program on the disposal of surplus weapons plutonium face additional significant delays, according to documents released by the department. The delays mean that the fate of the troubled program to fabricate plutonium fuel, known as mixed oxide fuel or MOX, from surplus weapons material faces new uncertainties and will not be determined until well into 2014.
On October 4, DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration posted changes to the contract for the company reviewing environmental impacts of the plutonium disposition program. The changes indicate that important decisions on the future of the costly program have been postponed for a year and a half. The changes to the Environmental Impact Statement contract were placed on Federal Business Opportunities website. Key changes to the contract include the extended deadline and increased fees to the contractor.
The same document that indicates further delays for the MOX Environmental Impact Statement also states that the DOE's "assessment" of plutonium disposition options, which was announced as part of the FY14 budget release in April 2013, will be delayed until mid-2014. This assessment is to review practical alternatives to the MOX program and audit the spiraling cost overruns that the program has faced since its earliest days.
Though no MOX customers have been identified, DOE is currently constructing a MOX fabrication plant at DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina on the speculation that a utility will offer its reactors for use of the experimental MOX fuel. Due to mismanagement the estimate for construction of the MOX facility has soared from $1.8 billion in 2004 to $4.8 billion in 2008 to $7.7 billion in 2013. Friends of the Earth estimates another $22 billion is required for MOX program, making it unsustainable given the current federal budget stresses.
One leading alternative to the MOX program is disposing of the surplus plutonium as waste. This could be done by packaging the plutonium with high level radioactive waste to create a theft-deterring radiation barrier and emplacing the waste in a secure geologic repository. Documents obtained by Friends of the Earth in response to a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that disposing of the plutonium in DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico appears to be much cheaper than MOX. Friends of the Earth supports disposal of plutonium as nuclear waste, as fabrication into MOX creates proliferation risks due to increased handling, introduction into commerce and challenges during reactor operation.
"DOE's admission that decisions about plutonium disposition have been posted until next year indicates big trouble for the mismanaged MOX program,' said Katherine Fuchs, nuclear subsidies campaigner with Friends of the Earth. "The stunning delays indicate that the skyrocketing costs, technical problems and schedules delays with MOX are catching up with the mismanaged program and could well spell its doom."
According to the NNSA contract-change notice, issuance of the "Record of Decision" on the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on plutonium disposition options has been delayed until April 30, 2014. After postponing release of the key document since October 2012, DOE currently lists the release of the SEIS document as being "under departmental review."
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400Patel allegedly told an FBI official that "the FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn't forgotten it."
A new lawsuit alleges that Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel knowingly broke the law during a campaign to politicize the entire agency.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, former FBI officials Brian Driscoll Jr., Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans claim that Patel "not only acted unlawfully but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people."
The complaint then laid out evidence of Patel's alleged lawbreaking, including a conversation in which the FBI director said that he had been directed by White House officials "to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump."
According to Driscoll, Patel told him that there was nothing he could do to prevent these agents from losing their jobs because "the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn't forgotten it." The complaint says Driscoll proceeded to inform Patel that firing FBI agents for this reason would be illegal, to which he responded that "he understood that and he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed."
The lawsuit also details a conversation that Driscoll had with Paul Ingrassia, a 29-year-old White House liaison who directly asked him questions of an overtly political nature, including:
Driscoll refused to answer any of these questions, the lawsuit stated.
The complaint further sheds light on the actions of Emil Bove, a former Trump attorney who earlier this year was confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
During a meeting with Bove in late January, Driscoll and Jensen informed him that messages from the Office of Personnel Management urging federal employees to voluntarily resign or face potential termination were creating "panic and anxiety" among FBI agents.
Bove allegedly responded that creating panic and anxiety "was the intent" of the messages.
In addition to all this, the complaint offers insights into the way that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino react to criticism from right-wing influencers on social media.
In one instance, the complaint alleges, Patel and Bongino found themselves taking heat from some prominent accounts on X because they'd promoted Jensen, who had played a role investigating and prosecuting Trump-supporting Capitol rioters, to serve as acting director in charge of the Washington Field Office.
Patel, tired of the criticism he was receiving for promoting Jensen, asked him if he would consider filing defamation suits against the angry internet trolls to take some pressure off him.
"Jensen declined, noting that he was unconcerned with the viewpoints of online personalities and would remain focused on the FBI's mission," the complaint notes.
Driscoll, Jensen, and Evans were all ousted from the FBI this past August as part of what critics contend was an authoritarian purge whose goal was "to weaponize federal law enforcement and replace highly experienced public servants with political hacks eager to carry out Trump's retribution agenda."
"The mantra in Silicon Valley is 'move fast and break things,' and that's exactly what Big Tech will do with a green light to override the laws and regulations they don't want to follow," one expert said.
US Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz on Wednesday unveiled a legislative framework for artificial intelligence, including a bill to create a "regulatory sandbox," which the Texas Republican said is part of President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan.
The Strengthening Artificial intelligence Normalization and Diffusion By Oversight and eXperimentation (SANDBOX) Act "gives AI developers space to test and launch new AI technologies without being held back by outdated or inflexible federal rules," Cruz's office said in a statement.
While his office celebrated support for the bill from "notable organizations in the tech space like the Abundance Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Information Technology Council," the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen swiftly sounded the alarm over the industry-friendly proposal.
"Public safety should never be made optional, but that's exactly what the SANDBOX Act does," said Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch. "Companies that build untested, unsafe AI tools could get hall passes from the very rules designed to protect the public. It guts basic consumer protections, lets companies skirt accountability, and treats Americans as test subjects."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions."
"The mantra in Silicon Valley is 'move fast and break things,' and that's exactly what Big Tech will do with a green light to override the laws and regulations they don't want to follow," Branch warned. "AI corporate executives see the opportunity to deploy all sorts of unregulated and untested products that can threaten our children's safety, consumers' privacy, and American democracy."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions," he added. "The sob stories of AI companies being 'held back' by regulation are simply not true, and the record company valuations show it. Lawmakers should stand with the public, not corporate lobbyists, and slam the brakes on this reckless proposal. Congress should focus on legislation that delivers real accountability, transparency, and consumer protection in the age of AI."
Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, was similarly critical of Cruz's legislation on Wednesday.
"Ideally, Big Tech companies and frontier labs would make safety a top priority and work to prevent harm to Americans. However, we have seen again and again that they have not done so. The SANDBOX Act removes much-needed oversight as Big Tech refuses to remain transparent with the public about the risks of advanced AI," he said. "This raises many questions about who can enter the so-called 'regulatory sandbox' and why. We hope that we will get answers to these questions in the coming days."
Passing the SANDBOX Act, plus streamlining AI infrastructure permitting and opening up federal datasets to AI model training, is just the first pillar of Cruz's five-part framework. Part two focuses on combating government censorship. The third section is about countering "burdensome" state and foreign AI regulations. Pillar four calls for protecting Americans from scams and fraud, as well as safeguarding US schoolchildren. The fifth prong is about bioethical considerations and AI-driven eugenics.
In the absence of federal regulation, states have acted on AI. As Reuters detailed Wednesday:
Several states have criminalized the use of AI to generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. California prohibits unauthorized deepfakes in political advertising and requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they are interacting with an AI and not a human.
Colorado passed a law last year aimed at preventing AI discrimination in employment, housing, banking, and other consequential consumer decisions. The tech industry has lobbied for changes to the law, and the state legislature recently pushed forward its implementation to mid-2026.
In July, ahead of the introduction of Trump's plan, over 90 groups focused on consumer protection, economic and environmental justice, labor, and more collectively called for an AI blueprint that "delivers on public well-being, shared prosperity, a sustainable future, and security for all."
Branch, whose group is part of that coalition, said at the time that "AI is already harming workers, consumers, and communities—and instead of enforcing guardrails, this administration is gutting oversight."
He said the defeat earlier this summer of a Senate measure that would have prevented state-level regulation of AI for a decade sent a clear message from the public: "No more handouts for Trump's tech bro buddies."
"We need rules and accountability," Branch said, "not a Silicon Valley free-for-all."
"They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks," said Rep. Mark Pocan, "but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."
House Republicans have struck down a pair of amendments to fully fund the Meals on Wheels program and AIDS prevention as part of this week's markup process for the fiscal year 2026 US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget.
The amendments were proposed by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) to the bill recently released by the House Appropriations Committee, which proposes to cut HHS funding by 6%.
Part of that funding comes from Meals on Wheels, the charity that provides an estimated 250 million meals each year to senior citizens unable to cook for themselves. The charity says that 9 in 10 of its providers receive some amount of federal funding and that for 60% of them, it represents more than half their operating budget.
According to Pocan, who spoke Monday on the House floor, the Republican bill underfunds the food assistance program by $600 million, which he says is likely to cost 1.9 million people their access to food.
"Republicans in the appropriations process are leaving seniors to starve," Pocan said.
Combined with the $187 billion already cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which Republicans passed in July, Pocan said it amounts to "the largest cut to food assistance in our nation's history."
Pocan juxtaposed these cuts with the "extravagant dinner" hosted this weekend at Trump's new, private White House "Rose Garden Club," which White House social media shows featured "steak and a fudge-filled seven-layer cake."
"I guess the theme of the White House event was 'let them eat cake,'" Pocan joked.
When he proposed the amendment as part of the markup process on Tuesday, Pocan spoke about his elderly mother's experience relying on the Meals on Wheels program when she dealt with mobility issues.
"I would hope that this is something where we could get together and say, 'Yeah, this should be a priority... We respect our seniors and we're going to show that through Meals on Wheels," Pocan said before his House colleagues.
Every single Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted against the amendment.
Republicans also unanimously struck down Pocan's amendment to restore nearly $2 billion for AIDS prevention cut from the House GOP bill, which makes up 25% of the total budget cuts to HHS.
In June, the Foundation for AIDS Research projected that Trump's proposal to cut $1.3 billion worth of HIV prevention funds "could cause an additional 144,000 new HIV diagnoses, 15,000 deaths, and 128,000 more people living with HIV in the US by 2030."
The Appropriations Committee budget goes even further than Trump's proposed budget released earlier this year, cutting over $1.7 billion worth of AIDS prevention funding.
It calls for the total elimination of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding to combat HIV and cuts $220 million allocated to Trump's own Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. It also eliminates $525 million from the Ryan White Program, which provides grants to over 400 HIV/AIDS clinics providing care and treatment.
"This is not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States," said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute. "Eliminating all HIV prevention means the end of state and local testing and surveillance programs, educational programs, and linkage to lifesaving care and treatment, along with PrEP. It will translate into an increased number of new HIV infections, which will be costlier to treat in the long run."
After Republicans voted down his amendment to reverse these "devastating" cuts, Pocan wrote on X, "They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks, but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."