

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, tomclements329@cs.com, 803-834-3084
Nick Berning, nberning@foe.org, 202-222-0748
Department
of Energy (DOE) documents released to Friends of the Earth reveal that
the public utility Energy Northwest hopes to bring experimental
radioactive plutonium fuel into Washington State for use in risky tests
in a nuclear reactor not originally designed for that purpose. The
documents also reveal that the utility has sought to keep information
secret the about the controversial and risky pursuit of use of surplus
weapons plutonium as nuclear reactor fuel.
The environmental watchdog group Friends of the Earth believes that
the plutonium mixed oxide fuel (MOX) should be kept out of the state and
that such tests would pose unacceptable safety risks and lead to
unacceptable costs.
According to a DOE document dated January 6, 2011, and confirmed by
documents obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Energy
Northwest is "formally evaluating the potential use of MOX fuel" in the
company's single nuclear reactor - the Columbia Generating Station
reactor - located at the Department of Energy's Hanford site near
Richland, Washington. The reactor is a GE boiling water reactor (BWR)
and was licensed in 1984. The Hanford site, where it is located, has
produced about 65 metric tons of weapons plutonium in now-closed
reactors dedicated to military use.
"It is foolish for Energy Northwest to continue down this costly and
risky path and we urge the utility to drop the controversial MOX
plans," said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator
with friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina. "Due to
non-proliferation and safety concerns, weapons plutonium should not be
used as fuel in the Columbia Generating Station or any other nuclear
power reactor."
"It's no surprise that the utility tried to keep its controversial
plans to use reactor fuel containing weapons-quality plutonium secret.
Myriad technical and public relations problems are posed by the
potential use of a fuel that has never before been tested in a boiling
water reactor. Bringing plutonium back to Hanford to be used as fuel
and stored as waste will set back cleanup efforts at the site. It's hard
to see how the public could accept bringing plutonium back to Hanford
after most of it has been shipped off the site," Clements said.
MOX fuel made from surplus weapons-grade plutonium has never before
been used in any country on a commercial scale and presents a host of
political and licensing problems for Energy Northwest. MOX containing
approximately five to seven percent weapons-grade plutonium presents
technical challenges to reactor operation and fuel management and
storage, poses security risks in transport and handling, and presents
the threat of larger radiation release in an accident. One of the
undated FOIA documents from Energy Northwest states, "It does not make
sense from either an economic perspective or risk perspective for Energy
Northwest to pursue the use of MOX fuel." But nuclear officials have
pushed ahead in spite of those concerns.
Over 200 pages of FOIA documents reveal that officials at Energy
Northwest have been developing plans with the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and the Department of Energy to begin a "three-!phased
approach to integrating MOX fuel" into the reactor. According to the
documents, testing would begin with irradiation of 10 to 20 fuel pins
fabricated by the laboratory in 2013 or 2105, followed by the use of up
to eight "lead use assemblies" (LUAs) around 2019 for three or more
two-year irradiation cycles (a total of six or more years), with loading
of up to 30 percent of the reactor's core with MOX fuel beginning
around 2025. Each step would require license amendments from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Department of Energy is currently constructing a $5-billion
facility to make MOX fuel at its Savannah River Site in South Carolina
and construction continues even though no nuclear reactor has been
identified that will use the MOX fuel. Duke Energy began testing of
experimental MOX fuel in 2005 but dropped out of the program after a
test in its Catawba reactor in South Carolina failed after two rather
than the necessary three 18-month irradiation cycles (the three cycles
would have lasted a total of 54 months). Now, the Energy Department,
via the contractor Shaw AREVA MOX Services, is focused on discussions
for MOX use with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Energy Northwest as
wider interest in the problematic fuel is lacking.
A March 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the Tennessee
Valley Authority and Energy Northwest regarding the exploration of
whether MOX could be used in boiling water reactors is among the FOIA
documents obtained by Friends of the Earth. Fuel fabricator GE-Hiatchi
has also been involved in the MOX-use discussions and participated in a
secret meeting with Energy Northwest, the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Shaw AREVA MOX Services, and DOE at the Savannah River Site
in September 2009.
The MOX program laid out in the documents is speculative as it would
have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would be
dependent on capacity to fabricate MOX test assemblies made from weapons
plutonium. No such production capacity currently exists, so the MOX
plant at the Savannah River site, scheduled to undergo startup testing
in 2016 or later (if construction finishes and if it can overcome an
operating license challenge by public interest groups), would have to be
used to fabricate "lead use assemblies." This means that the MOX plant
at the Savannah River Site is at risk of sitting idle for years as no
MOX fuel beyond that used in testing could be produced during the test
phase as NRC approval for the fuel's quality and performance would be
lacking.
Energy Northwest presentations obtained via the Freedom of
information Act point out potential problems with MOX use, saying that
there must be "no negative impact on reactor operation" and that MOX use
must be "cost neutral" for Energy Northwest. An Energy Northwest
senior engineer in charge of fuel management wrote in a December 2009
email that those at Energy Northwest and the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory pursuing MOX use "don't want any unexpected press releases
about burning MOX fuel in [the Columbia Generating Station reactor]."
That same official commented that the DOE's lack of utilities interested
in using the MOX fuel "doesn't look good politically."
###
Notes:
1. FOIA documents from Energy Northwest (partial, final)
2. DOE Presentation on Status of MOX Plant, January 6, 2011
3. Friends of the Earth letter to NRC, Jan. 29, 2011, on plans by
Energy Northwest to use MOX, for Columbia Generating Station license
renewal application
4. Friends of the Earth letter to Energy Northwest CEO Mark Reddemann, Jan. 31, 2011, urging the end of MOX use.
5. Friends of the Earth news release "Duke Energy Abandons Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Testing Program in South Carolina Reactor," November 12, 2009
6. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) MOX fact sheet - "Plutonium Disposition Remains In Disarray"
7. Information on NRC website about Columbia Generating Station:
8. Energy Northwest overview
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) 783-7400"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."