

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.

As a
Thursday vote on two new nuclear reactors looms, cities around the
state that purchase power from San Antonio's municipal utility, City
Public Services (CPS), are balking at the prospect of buying pricey
nuclear power from the reactors.
Three
problems exist with the planned expansion at the South Texas Nuclear
Project (STP) facility. First, nuclear power creates dangerous
radioactive waste that no one has figured out how to dispose of safely.
Second,
nuclear power is expensive - the nuclear industry requires taxpayer
subsidies to prop it up. Third, no one knows for certain just how much
the construction of the two reactors will cost ratepayers.
The CPS
board recently recommended that CPS Energy, which owns a 50 percent
stake in the project along with NRG energy, reduce that share to 20 to
25 percent. CPS Energy and NRG Energy have been attempeting to sell a
joint 20 percent share for the past year, but a buyer has not yet been
found. If they can't reduce their stake, they will be even more
responsible for any cost overruns and would be more likely to need to
increase rates to cover the project.
CPS
has announced that it wants to increase San Antonio ratepayer bills by
5 percent every two years over the next 10 years, in large part to pay
for the two new reactors. These rate increases could be as much as 8
percent every two years unless CPS can sell its share of the reactors,
as it is trying to do.
"CPS
is trying to allay the fears of San Antonio and the City Council by
saying they'll own only a 20 percent share, but they're still on the
hook for a full 50 percent if they can't find a buyer," said Tom
"Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "Outside
cities and wholesale customers of CPS are wising up to the fact that
San Antonio's nuclear expansion is not a good idea. We urge cities to
tell San Antonio: No new nuclear reactors."
The
San Antonio City Council votes Thursday to approve $400 million in
bonds for nuclear energy, which will determine whether CPS moves
forward with the project.
Growing
opposition to nuclear power may make selling CPS' unwanted shares of
STP more difficult. Citizen opposition to the STP project already has
caused delays in San Antonio, where the City Council put off a vote to
issue nuclear bonds for a month. Wholesale customers of CPS such as the
cities of Hondo, Georgetown and Kerrville also are seeing a rising tide
of public discontent about nuclear power.
"In an
energy market where demand is already down and cities could readily
meet their needs with clean energy sources such as efficiency, solar,
wind and more, cities looking to buy power from STP could be confronted
with a public relations battle over nuclear power," said Smith.
On
Oct. 13, the city of Hondo unanimously passed a resolution urging San
Antonio and CPS Energy to "not approve the expansion of the South Texas
Project nuclear power plant" and to "pursue safer, cleaner, more
affordable energy options and not additional nuclear reactors."
"We
introduced this resolution for Hondo because we want to power our city
with clean, safe energy that will benefit the economic development of
the area with green, sustainable jobs," said Chavel Lopez, a member of
Hondo's Council at the time the resolution was passed. "We hope that
this measure will set precedence for other cities purchasing
electricity from CPS Energy to take a stand. Other cities should pass
similar resolutions to show the San Antonio City Council that residents
of rural communities will be impacted in a negative way by this
proposal and the uncertainty of our electricity rates over the next 10
years."
In
Georgetown and Kerrville, both of which CPS has identified as potential
buyers of their unwanted project shares, citizens are organizing to
urge their councils to pass similar resolutions. Last week in
Georgetown, a group of students at Southwestern University known as
Students for Environmental Activism and Knowledge (SEAK) held a press
conference asking the Georgetown City Council to reconsider its support
for the STP expansion and to do so in a public forum. Georgetown's
long-term generation plan includes a goal of purchasing 30 percent
nuclear power by 2030, but given the fact that the estimated cost of
nuclear expansion has doubled since that goal was set, students are
calling on the Council to reevaluate that plan.
"Because
nuclear reactors come with a huge financial and environmental cost, we
are asking the City Council to reconsider their future generation plan
and refuse nuclear power from CPS Energy in San Antonio," said Tanlyn
Roelofs with SEAK. "Nuclear power is too expensive, is not an
alternative to coal and uses too much water in a region already harmed
by drought."
Representatives from SEAK will make a presentation to the Georgetown City Council on Tuesday.
Local
residents of Kerrville are similarly concerned that the Kerrville
Public Utility Board (KPUB) is being courted as a potential buyer of
San Antonio's unwanted share of the STP expansion.
"CPS
is over its head in this investment and is hoping that KPUB will be
foolish enough to take it off of their hands," said Ann Morris
Cockrell, resident of Kerr County and long-time anti-nuclear activist.
"Why on earth would any city take on an investment that Wall Street
won't - and if the City of San Antonio can't handle it, why would they
think that a town the size of Kerrville can? Even a small share of this
plant could easily overwhelm our resources if the deal goes south.
Kerrville should follow Hondo's lead and adopt a resolution against
nuclear involvement."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," said a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
Iranian officials on Monday warned US President Donald Trump that his name will be "etched in history as a supreme war criminal" if he follows through with his threat to wage total war on Iran's civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, wrote on social media following Trump's Easter-morning outburst that "threats to attack power plants and bridges (civilian infrastructure) constitute war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 (Article 52)."
"The president of the United States, in his capacity as the highest-ranking official of his country, has openly threatened to commit war crimes—an act that entails his individual criminal responsibility before the International Criminal Court and any competent national court," Gharibabadi added, vowing that Iran "will deliver a decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response" to any attack.
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said Trump's threats are "an indication of a criminal mindset."
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," Baghaei said in an interview on Sunday. "Threatening to attack a country's critical infrastructure, energy sector, it would mean that you want to put at risk the whole population."
Absolute bombshell. Iran's Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei accuses the Trump administration of a criminal mindset and public incitement for genocide. Threatening a nation's critical infrastructure puts the entire population at risk. The White House has completely abandoned morality. pic.twitter.com/HcBZGZho5p
— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) April 5, 2026
The US and Israel have already done significant damage to Iran's civilian infrastructure. The country's deputy health minister said Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been hit by US-Israeli strikes, and dozens of medics have been killed since the bombing began on February 28.
But Trump on Sunday threatened an indiscriminate assault, telling Fox News that if the Iranians "don't make a deal and fast," he is "considering blowing everything up and taking the oil."
"You're going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country," the president said, setting a new deadline of 8 pm ET for the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's remarks came after he published a deranged post on his Truth Social platform demanding that Iran "open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell."
Analysts and lawmakers in the US echoed Iranian officials' warnings that Trump's threatened attacks would constitute war crimes.
"Trump's advisers are telling him to hit civilian sites because it will cause unrest and potentially topple the regime. But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote. "Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said that "any lawmaker who votes for supplemental funding for the war on Iran or against war powers resolutions to end it will be fully complicit in the war crimes threatened here, as well as those already committed by this unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief."
The US president's renewed threats came amid reports of a diplomatic effort, mediated in part by Pakistan, to enact a 45-day ceasefire to provide space for a lasting resolution to the war.
Axios reported that the talks are seen as "the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states."