

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) 588-1000"Trump has no legal authority to tariff American allies to bully them into backing his brainless attempt to seize Greenland," one US lawmaker said.
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced new tariffs on eight European countries that oppose his plan to annex Greenland hours after thousands of people gathered in Denmark and Greenland to declare, "Greenland is not for sale."
In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland would face a 10% tariff beginning February 1, which would jump to a 25% tariff on June 1.
"This Tariff will be due and payable until such a time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland," Trump wrote from his West Palm Beach, Florida gulf course.
The announcement seemed to deliver on a threat the president made Friday to impose tariffs on countries "if they don't go along with" his designs on Greenland. It also ignored the sentiment of the thousands of people who marched in Denmark and Greenland's capitals wearing red hats with the slogan, "Make America Go Away."
"You cannot buy Greenland, you cannot buy a people. It is so wrong, disrespectful to think that you can purchase a country and a people."
“We are demonstrating against American statements and ambitions to annex Greenland,” Camilla Siezing, chairwoman of the Inuit Association, said in a statement. “We demand respect for the Danish Realm and for Greenland’s right to self-determination.”
Julie Rademacher, chair of Uagut—an association of Greenlanders who live in Denmark that helped organize the demonstrations—said at the Copenhagen protest, as Deutsche Welle reported: "We are also sending a message to the world that you all must wake up... Greenland and the Greenlanders have involuntarily become the front in the fight for democracy and human rights."
One Greenlander who attended the Copenhagen protest was Naja Mathilde Rosing.
"America has a sense of feeling they can steal land from the Native Americans, steal land from the Indigenous Hawaiian people, steal land from the Indigenous Inuit from Alaska," she told NPR. "You cannot buy Greenland, you cannot buy a people. It is so wrong, disrespectful to think that you can purchase a country and a people."
Protests were also held in the Danish cities of Aarhus, Aalborg and Odense.
Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark with a population of nearly 57,000, 85% of whom do not want to join the United States.
Greenland's Prime Minister prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen joined a crowd of 5,000 in the island's capital city of Nuuk, where people carried signs reading, "Greenland is already great," and "Yankee, go home," according to CNN.
“We have seen what (Trump) does in Venezuela and Iran," one protester, named Patricia, told CNN. "He doesn’t respect anything. He just takes what he thinks is his… He misuses his power.”
Yet Trump did not acknowledge the feelings of Greenlanders in his post on Saturday. Instead, he was focused on the actions of eight European countries that have sent small numbers of troops to the island, accusing them of "playing this very dangerous game."
The leaders of the eight countries and the European Union pushed back against Trump's threats.
French President Emmanuel Macron likened Trump's designs on Greenland to Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
"No intimidation or threat will influence us—neither in Ukraine, nor in Greenland, nor anywhere else in the world when we are confronted with such situations," he wrote on social media. "Tariff threats are unacceptable and have no place in this context. Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated manner should they be confirmed. We will ensure that European sovereignty is upheld. It is in this spirit that I will engage with our European partners."
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson posted: "We will not let ourselves be blackmailed. Only Denmark and Greenland decide on issues concerning Denmark and Greenland."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leynen wrote: "Tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. Europe will remain united, coordinated, and committed to upholding its sovereignty."
Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, meanwhile, said Trump's tariff announcement came "as a surprise," noting that it followed a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier in the week, which he described as "constructive."
Trump's latest tariff threat also drew criticism from US lawmakers.
"To threaten Denmark—and now six other NATO allies—in a crusade to take Greenland threatens to blow up the NATO alliance that has kept Americans safe and destroy our standing in the world as a trustworthy ally," wrote Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Denmark that coincided with Saturday's protests.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said: "Trump has no legal authority to tariff American allies to bully them into backing his brainless attempt to seize Greenland. This is against the law, it’s a total disaster for America, and Republicans in Congress and the Supreme Court need to find their spines and stop it."
" Donald Trump wants to be Tariff King, but he's nothing more than a tax troll with no legal authority to levy these tariffs, no support from the American people, and no support from his allies."
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) also called on Congress to act.
"Trump is raising tariffs on eight NATO allies because they rightly support Denmark's sovereignty in Greenland. Destroying our closest alliances to take Greenland—which Denmark lets us use freely already—is insane. Congress must say NO," Sanders wrote on social media.
Murray posted: "To my Republican colleagues: ENOUGH. It's time for the Senate to vote to block these tariffs and to block the use of military force against Greenland. Trump is tearing apart our alliances in real time and the economic and diplomatic consequences will be catastrophic."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) also appealed to Republican colleagues, and pointed out that it would ultimately be Americans who would pay higher prices as a result of the tariffs.
"Troops from European countries are arriving in Greenland to defend the territory from us," he wrote on social media. "Let that sink in. And now Trump is setting tariffs on our allies, making you pay more to try to get territory we don’t need. The damage this President is doing to our reputation and our relationships is growing, making us less safe. If something doesn’t change we will be on our own with adversaries and enemies in every direction. Republicans in Congress need to stand up to Trump."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) posted a video from the streets of Boston, evoking the spirit of the American Revolution.
"Donald Trump wants to be Tariff King, but he's nothing more than a tax troll with no legal authority to levy these tariffs, no support from the American people, and no support from his allies. Enough is enough," he said.
Ultimately, Trump's ability to play "tariff king" will be determined by the Supreme Court, which could rule as soon as next week on the legality of many of his tariffs.
"This is an important preliminary win for all Minnesotans exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and witness," state Attorney General Keith Ellison said.
Federal officers cannot retaliate against, detain, or attack people who are peacefully protesting and observing immigration enforcement operations in the Minneapolis area, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
The ruling comes a little more than a week after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed legal observer Renee Nicole Good, supercharging protests against an immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities that the Department of Homeland Security claims is its largest ever.
"This is an important preliminary win for all Minnesotans exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and witness," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wrote on social media in response to the ruling. "Thanks and congratulations to the ACLU and the plaintiffs for standing strong for this bedrock principle."
The ruling was issued by Biden appointee and US District Judge Kate Menendez, who is based in Minneapolis. It restricts federal officers involved in "Operation Metro Surge"—an immigration-enforcement blitz in the Minneapolis area—from retaliating against, arresting or detaining, or targeting with nonlethal munitions such as pepper spray anyone "engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity," including observing ICE operations.
"We are relieved that in Tincher v. Noem et al. the court has issued a preliminary injunction. The ACLU-MN is hopeful that it will prevent further First Amendment violations like the ones that have been harming Minnesotans since the start of 'Operation Metro Surge.'"
Menendez further stipulated that people could not be detained for following ICE and other immigration enforcers with their vehicles if they were not interfering with the agents.
"The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop," Menendez said.
The ruling is a preliminary injunction in response to Tincher v. Noem et al., a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) in December 2025 on behalf of six community members who said their constitutional rights were violated by ICE in response to their protests.
Plaintiff Susan Tincher, for example, wrote that she was arrested merely for driving to the place where an ICE operation was taking place.
“I was on a public street,” Tincher in a statement. “I did not cross any lines. I did not interfere with anything. I did not disobey an order. I asked a single question–‘are you ICE?’–and almost immediately, officers rushed me, grabbed me, and slammed me face-first into the snow.”
Since the lawsuit was filed, ICE activity in the Twin Cities continued to escalate, culminating with an influx of 2,000 agents on January 6 and the shooting of Good the next day.
On January 8, the day after Good's murder, the plaintiffs' lawyers sent an emergency letter to the judge urging action.
"Thousands of peaceful observers and protesters turned out in the streets of the Twin Cities in the wake of Ms. Good’s murder," the letter reads in part. "Peaceful observers and protesters turned out again today, they will turn out again tomorrow, and they will continue turning out every day until Operation Metro Surge is over. These Minnesotans who are peacefully exercising their core constitutional rights to speak and gather continue to be met with unconstitutional and terrifying violence at the hands of federal agents on a daily basis, including unwarranted pepper spraying and unfounded arrests... And things appear to be getting worse, not better: Even more federal agents are being deployed to Minnesota at this very moment."
The ACLU-MN applauded the fact that Menendez had moved to restrain ICE.
"We are relieved that in Tincher v. Noem et al. the court has issued a preliminary injunction. The ACLU-MN is hopeful that it will prevent further First Amendment violations like the ones that have been harming Minnesotans since the start of 'Operation Metro Surge,'" the group wrote on social media.
Beyond Good's killing, the ruling follows several other high-profile incidents of ICE violence in Minnesota, including a nonlethal shooting of a man at a traffic stop and the hospitalization of three children after ICE tear-gassed the van they were driving in.
Menendez's decision came the same day that news broke that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice was investigating local leaders who had criticized ICE activity, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
"This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," one Democratic senator said.
The Department of Justice is investigating Minnesota leaders including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents due to their outspoken criticism of the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to the Twin Cities.
The investigation, first reported by CBS News on Friday, marks yet another escalation from the Trump administration following the January 6 launch of what the Department of Homeland Security claimed was its larger-ever immigration operation in the Minneapolis area and the killing the next day of legal observer Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.
"Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic," Walz wrote on social media in response to news of the investigation. "The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her."
At the time of Good's death, Walz said the violence was the "consequence of governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict" and told President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, "From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government... you've done enough."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution."
Frey, meanwhile, responded to the shooting by telling ICE to "get the fuck out of Minneapolis!”
A source informed CNN that the Justice Department has issued subpoenas for both Walz and Frey, but neither leader's office had received any communication from the DOJ as of Friday.
"This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this administration has brought to our city," Frey posted on social media Friday. "I will not be intimidated. My focus remains where it’s always been: keeping our city safe."
Frey continued: "America depends on leaders that use integrity and the rule of law as the guideposts for governance. Neither our city nor our country will succumb to this fear. We stand rock solid."
A US official told CBS News that the leaders were being investigated under 18 USC § 372, which says it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to stop federal agents from doing their jobs through "force, intimidation, or threats." However, this statute has not historically been used against people using their First Amendment right to criticize federal operations.
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman called the investigation "total garbage" and "a complete and utter non-starter."
He added that the statute DOJ was invoking "requires force, intimidation, or threats," and that "there’s no way they could prove that, but even more… the First Amendment prevents any kind of action unless it is imminent and lawless.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, seemed to celebrate the investigation on social media, writing, "A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."
Several Democratic politicians joined Walz and Frey in speaking out against the investigation on social media, including several from Minnesota.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the investigation "an assault on our democracy and the rule of law."
"Speaking out against what our government is doing is not a crime in America—not now, not ever," she continued.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) wrote, "America deserves justice, not President Trump’s use of DOJ as a weapon against his perceived enemies. I stand with Gov. Walz."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said that the investigation was "even more proof that this has never been about making Minnesota safer. It has always been about political retribution for President Trump and his allies."
Beyond Minnesota, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote: "Donald Trump’s corrupted DOJ will stop at nothing—including ridiculous theories unsupported by facts—in pursuing his revenge agenda. No one is safe from his abuse of power. It’s sick."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution," posted Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) "I won’t be bullied and neither will the American people."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pointed to other times that Trump's DOJ had gone after his political opponents: "First it was Tish James and James Comey. Now it’s Senators, Governors, and the Fed Chair. In Donald Trump’s America you get a bogus investigation for doing your job. Americans reject this kind of totalitarian bullying. Where are Republicans? Hiding."
Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) both redirected attention to the killing of Renee Good.
"Instead of investigating the death of Renee Good, Trump wants to investigate Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Despicable. This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," Van Hollen wrote on Friday.
In a follow-up post on Saturday, he continued: "Opening fraudulent investigations into Governor Walz and Mayor Frey is a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct. Judges must start imposing sanctions and holding lawyers accountable. To every federal official participating in these shams: One day you will be held accountable."
Sen. Warren wrote: "Instead of seeking justice for Renee Good, Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to investigate and intimidate Democratic leaders in Minnesota. We will not stand by silently and be bullied into submission."