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.
Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
While a drop in public support for nuclear power would be expected after an incident like the Fukushima reactor crisis, the nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a much stronger response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power to wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs, according to a major new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).
Beyond major nuclear power policy questions, the survey also found a majority of Americans living near nuclear power plants ill equipped to deal with a major disaster. According to the survey, over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take." The poll indicates that nearly one in four (24 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.
Conducted March 15-16, 2011, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found that:
* | Over half (53 percent) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term." (Such a plan requiring no new nuclear power plant construction in U.S. was outlined in 2010 by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., and is available online at https://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf.) |
* | 73 percent of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." |
* | 74 percent of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power. |
* | Nearly three out of four (73 percent) Americans would favor Congress reviewing a 1957 law indemnifying nuclear power companies from most disaster clean-up costs. Instead, Americans would hold the companies "liable for all damages resulting from a nuclear meltdown or other accident." |
* | 76 percent of Americans say they are now "more supportive than ... a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States." In fact, nearly half (46 percent) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago. |
Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: "The American public clearly favors a conservative approach to energy that insists on it being safe in all senses of the word - including the risk to local communities and citizens. These poll findings support the need for a renewed national debate about the energy choices that America makes. When Japan -- the nation that President Obama held up as an example of safe nuclear power being used on a large-scale basis -- is unable to effectively control its considerable downside, Americans are understandably leery about the same technology being used even more extensively in this nation. And safety concerns about the existing nuclear plants also deserve serious attention. The Japanese crisis is an opportunity for America to make smarter choices about energy and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima."
Graham Hueber, senior researcher, ORC International, said: "The survey findings suggest that Americans would like to see the brakes applied to more nuclear power. This goes beyond the simple gut-level question of whether nuclear power is supported or opposed. When Americans are asked about their views on specific policy questions that go to the future of nuclear power, there is majority support across the board on every question for moving away from greater reliance on this power source."
Grant Smith, senior advisor, Civil Society Institute, and executive director, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, said: "The United States is at a real crossroads today. While the electric power industry remains obsessed with such dirty and needlessly expensive 19th and 20th century 'business as usual' solutions as coal-fired and nuclear power, there is an opportunity today to make the transition without multi-billion dollar gambles on unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology and risky nuclear loan-guarantee bailouts. In the wake of the Japan reactor crisis, there is a new opportunity here to embrace the clean energy future that is within our grasp."
The 100-percent independent CSI think tank receives no direct or indirect support of any kind from any nuclear industry interest, or any other energy-related company, organization or related individual.
OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS
* | Nearly six out of 10 (58 percent) Americans are now "less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States" than they were a month ago. Only about one in seven Americans (14 percent) said their views had not been changed by the Japanese reactor crisis. |
* | Fewer than half (46 percent) of Americans would "support more nuclear power reactors in the United States" and 44 percent now oppose new reactors. That support level is down by more than 25 percent from the most recent March 2010 Gallup Poll showing 62 percent support for nuclear power. |
* | Over half (51 percent) of Americans would support "a halt to the United States extending the operating lifespan of its oldest nuclear reactors." |
* | 92 percent of Americans are "following news about the nuclear reactor crisis and related disaster in Japan." |
METHODOLOGY
These findings are based on a telephone survey conducted by ORC International among a national probability sample of 814 adults comprising 404 men and 410 women 18 years of age and older, living in private households in the continental United States. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period March 15-16, 2011. Completed interviews are weighted by five variables: age, sex, geographic region, race, and education to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population, 18 years of age and older.
The nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (https://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org) is a think tank that serves as a catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people, and between communities, government and business that can help to improve society. Since 2003, CSI has conducted more than 20 major surveys and reports on energy and auto issues, including vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, consumer demand for hybrids/other highly-fuel efficient vehicles, global warming and renewable energy.
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," one Democratic congresswoman asserted.
Senior Trump administration officials on Monday made fresh threats to crack down on a nonexistent left-wing "domestic terror movement" following last week's assassination of Charlie Kirk—a move that critics called an attempt to exploit the far-right firebrand's murder to advance an authoritarian agenda targeting nonviolent opposition.
Even as investigators work to determine the motive of Kirk's killer, members of Trump's inner circle and supporters have amplified an unfounded narrative of a coordinated leftist movement targeting conservatives.
According to The New York Times:
On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that Cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.
Appearing on the latest episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show" podcast—which was guest hosted by US Vice President JD Vance—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that "we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people."
"It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name," Miller vowed.
Vance said during the podcast that he wanted to explore “all of the ways that we’re trying to figure out how to prevent this festering violence that you see on the far left from becoming even more and more mainstream."
“You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, ‘Oh, Stephen Miller and JD Vance, they’re going to go after constitutionally protected speech,'” the vice president said. “We’re going to go after the network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence."
Vance, who like Trump and numerous supporters claim to champion free speech, also took aim at "people who are celebrating" Kirk's killing.
Another unnamed administration official told the Times Monday that government agencies would be investigating people, including those accused of vandalizing Tesla electric vehicles and dealerships and allegedly assaulting federal immigration agents, in an effort to implicate US leftists in political violence.
Vance and Miller's threats ignored right-wing violence—which statistically outpaces left-wing attacks—including the recent assassinations of Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who were murdered in June by a right-wing masked gunman disguised as a police officer.
Investigative reporter Jason Paladino reported last week that the US Department of Justice apparently removed an academic study previously published on the National Institute for Justice's online library showing that "since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives" versus "42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives" committed by "far-left extremists."
“Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”The Trump DOJ scrubbed this study from their website.
[image or embed]
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) September 12, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Responding to Miller's remarks, New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent noted on social media that "Stephen Miller was directly involved in one of the largest acts of organized domestic political violence the United States has seen in modern times, the January 6 [2021] insurrection."
Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) weighed in Monday on Miller's attempt to exploit Kirk's murder, writing on the social media site Bluesky that "it's never acceptable to kill someone for their political beliefs. But the Trump [administration] exploiting the shooting of Charlie Kirk to follow their authoritarian instincts and crack down on the left is incredibly disturbing."
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," she added.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom noted Monday on social media that Miller "has already publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization."
"This isn’t about crime and safety," Newsom added. "It’s about dismantling our democratic institutions. We cannot allow acts of political violence to be weaponized and used to threaten tens of millions of Americans."
The progressive Working Families Party (WFP) said Monday on social media that "JD Vance and Stephen Miller want to use the horrifying murder of Charlie Kirk to target and dismantle pro-democracy groups."
"Their comments call to mind some of the darkest periods in US history," WFP continued. "They're dividing people based on what box we ticked on our voter registration."
Vance and Miller "want to stoke fear and resentment to justify their un-American crackdowns on free speech, mass abductions of working people, and military takeovers of our cities," WFP added. "This isn't going to fly. We’ve survived crises like this before as a country, and we can choose to live in a place where our political freedoms are protected, where we settle disagreements with words not weapons, and where no one has to fear losing a loved one to gun violence."
"There is no legal justification for this military strike," said one Amnesty International campaigner. "The US must be held accountable."
President Donald Trump said Monday that the US carried out a fresh strike on what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one human rights campaigner called another "extrajudicial execution."
"This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the [US Southern Command] area of responsibility," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US."
"These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to US National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital US Interests," the Republican president continued. "The Strike resulted in three male terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this Strike."
"BE WARNED—IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!" Trump added. "The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
US President Trump just announced that a second drug smuggling boat from Venezuela was hit by a US airstrike in the Caribbean, killing 3 people on board the boat.#Venezuela pic.twitter.com/dO34gYr9GZ
— CNW (@ConflictsW) September 15, 2025
Responding to arguments by legal experts and Venezuelan officials that the September 2 strike was illegal, Trump said Sunday that "what's illegal are the drugs that were on the boat... and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."
Only 62 million people died in the entire world of all causes last year, making Trump's claim impossibly false.
Monday's attack followed the September 2 bombing of a vessel allegedly transporting cocaine off the Venezuelan coast, a strike that killed 11 people. Venezuelan officials say none of the 11 men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, as claimed by Trump.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last month, the president reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat drug cartels abroad, sparking fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US attacks, invasions, occupations, and other interventions since the issuance of the dubious Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported Monday that the Trump administration's recently rebranded Department of War "is thwarting congressional oversight" of the September 2 attack.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in response to Turse's reporting. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings—and teased more to come.”
Common Dreams reported last week that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a war powers resolution seeking to restrain Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered "no legitimate justification" for the first boat strike.
It's not just congressional Democrats who have decried Trump's September 2 attack. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that "the recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war, and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement."
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul later added.
Paul also mirrored Democratic lawmakers' questioning of Trump's narrative that the boat bombed on September 2 was heading to the United States.
Echoing congressional critics, Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International's Security With Human Rights program, said of Monday's attack, "Today, President Trump claimed his administration carried out another lethal strike against a boat in the Caribbean."
"This is an extrajudicial execution, which is murder," Eviatar added. "There is no legal justification for this military strike. The US must be held accountable."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said one rights advocate.
Human rights leaders on Monday called on the 112 countries that are party to a treaty banning cluster munitions to reinforce the ban and demand that other governments sign on to the agreement, as they released an annual report showing that the bombs only serve to cause civilian suffering—sometimes long after conflicts have ended.
The governance board of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) released the 16th annual Cluster Munition Monitor on Monday, compiling data on the impact of cluster munitions for 2024 and revealing that all reported cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians—and close to half, 42%, were children.
Cluster bombs are particularly dangerous to civilians because after being dropped from aircraft or fired by rockets or other weapon, they open in the air and send multiple submunitions over wide areas—often leaving unexploded bomblets that are sometimes mistaken by children for harmless toys, and can kill and injure people in populated areas for years or even decades after the initial bombing.
The report, which was released as officials prepare to convene in Geneva for the Cluster Munitions Conference, says at least 314 global casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in 202, with 193 civilians killed in attacks in Ukraine—plus 15 who were killed by unexploded munitions.
Since the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted in 2008, none of the 112 signatories have used cluster bombs—but countries that are not party to the convention, including Russia and Ukraine, used the munitions throughout 2024 and into this year, and the US has said it transferred cluster bombs to Ukraine at least seven times between July 2023-October 2024.
The report details recent uses of cluster bombs, the impact of which may not be known for years as civilians remain at risk from the unexploded bombs, including by Thailand—by its own apparent admission—in its border conflict with Cambodia and allegedly by Iran, which Israel claimed used cluster munitions in its attack in June. Cluster munitions have also reportedly been used in recent years in Myanmar—including at schools—and Syria.
"Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
This year, the withdrawal of Lithuania from the Convention on Cluster Munitions—an unprecedented step—garnered condemnation from at least 47 countries. While it had never previously used or stockpiled cluster bombs, the country said it was necessary to have the option of using the munitions "to face increased regional security threats."
The casualties that continued throughout 2024 and into 2025 "demonstrate the need to clear more contaminated land and to provide more assistance to victims," said Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of CMC.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions has over many years made significant progress in reducing the human suffering caused by cluster munitions," said Mark Hiznay, associate crisis, conflict, and arms director for HRW. "Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
The report notes that funding cuts by donor states including the US, which under the second term of President Donald Trump has cut funding for landmine and cluster bomb clearance and aid, have left many affected countries struggling to provide services to survivors.
Children, the report notes, are often particularly in need of aid after suffering the effects of cluster munitions, as they are "more vulnerable to injury and frequently require repeated surgeries, regular prosthetic replacements as they grow, and long-term opportunities to access physical rehabilitation and psychological support."
"Without adequate care for children, complications can worsen, affecting their schooling, social interactions, mental health, and overall well-being," explained IBCL and CMC.
At the Cluster Munitions Conference taking place from September 16-19, said Anne Héry, advocacy director for the group Humanity and Inclusion, states must "reaffirm their commitment to this vital treaty."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said Héry. "Questioning the convention is unacceptable. States convening at the annual Cluster Munition Conference must reaffirm their strong attachment to the treaty and their condemnation of any use by any party."