

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.

Ashley Siefert, asiefert@ucsusa.org or 202-331-5666
U.S. East and Gulf Coast military installations are at risk of losing land--where vital training and testing grounds, infrastructure and housing now exists--as sea level rise moves the high tide line inland in decades to come, according to a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis released today.
U.S. East and Gulf Coast military installations are at risk of losing land--where vital training and testing grounds, infrastructure and housing now exists--as sea level rise moves the high tide line inland in decades to come, according to a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis released today.
The analysis, "The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas," found that coastal installations will experience more extensive tidal flooding and when hurricanes strike, deeper and more extensive storm surge flooding.
"We're now at the front end of the changes that will occur, with some installations already dealing with flooding during extreme high tides," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, lead author of the report and senior analyst in the Climate and Energy program at UCS. "Depending on how fast sea level rises in the second half of this century, tidal flooding will become a daily occurrence in some areas; that is, those places become part of the tidal zone as opposed to useable land. This also depends on how installations respond and whether they have the resources to adapt."
The UCS study analyzed 18 East and Gulf Coast military installations--selected to be representative of coastal installations nationwide in terms of size, geographic distribution and military branch--for their changing exposure to flooding through the end of the century. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide gauges from Portland, Maine to Pensacola, Florida were used to calculate the "intermediate" and "highest" sea level rise projections and the frequency of high tide flooding, and the NOAA SLOSH model was used to model storm surge. Recent studies suggest that the highest scenario is increasingly plausible due to accelerating ice sheet loss.
The UCS analysis found:
"By 2050, most of these sites will see more than 10 times the number of floods they experience today," said Kristy Dahl, UCS consulting scientist and report co-author, who served as the lead analyst for the study. "In 2070, all but a few are projected to see flooding once or twice every day. Shockingly, these aren't even the worst-case scenarios."
Because of factors such as low elevation, land subsidence and differing rates of sea level rise, some military installations will be forced to address increased flooding and land loss risk sooner than others. For example, with the faster pace of ice sheet loss, four installations--Naval Air Station Key West in Florida, Joint Base Langley-Eustis and Dam Neck Annex in Virginia, and Marine Corps Recruit Depot on Parris Island in South Carolina--could lose between 75 and 95 percent of their land this century.
"Many of the installations we looked at can expect to lose a great deal of their land to the future high tide line," said Astrid Caldas, report author and UCS climate scientist. "And when a hurricane strikes, the flooding is projected to be substantially deeper at many sites. Flooding obviously won't be confined to the installations. The surrounding communities, which the installations are pretty connected to, will be dealing with the same--and sometimes worse--flooding problems."
Some military installations are already taking actions to adapt to sea level rise. At Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, a shoreline seawall and door dams have been constructed to protect some of its buildings. The base also has a pump system to remove flood waters that get past the safeguards. Similarly, the Dam Neck Annex in Virginia has built a rock-core dune that is about one-mile long to protect the main part of the installation from storm surge.
"The Pentagon knows it has a problem, and some installations are already making an effort to reduce their exposure," said Spanger-Siegfried. "But there's a big gap between what's being done and what's needed. Meanwhile, Congress may make it harder. The House voted last month to block the Defense Department from spending money to implement its own climate change preparedness plan."
Going forward, individual installations need more detailed analyses of how rising seas will affect their infrastructure, as well as additional resources to adapt to the changing conditions, according to the report. Congress and the Department of Defense should, for example, support the development and distribution of high-resolution hurricane and coastal flooding models, adequately fund data monitoring systems like NOAA's tide gauge network, and allocate resources to support detailed mapping that reflects future sea levels as well as planning and adaptation efforts.
Additionally, military installations will need to engage in regional planning processes with surrounding communities given that rising seas will affect housing, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure both on and off installations.
Results for individual military installations--in Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington D.C.--can be found here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law," said the head of Beyond Nuclear.
A coalition of advocacy groups on Monday took aim at President Donald Trump's nuclear power plans, including a recently proposed rule that would allow developers using federally approved reactor designs to bypass required safety reviews, which the organizations called "ill-advised and contrary to law."
"In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law," said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear, in a statement.
"But nuclear technology is too inherently dangerous to operate as an outlaw," she stressed. "Ignoring those dangers will put millions of Americans at risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident."
Beyond Nuclear and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) have submitted multiple formal comments to the administration, on behalf of overlapping coalitions, blasting its ongoing nuclear policymaking, which has been guided by a series of executive orders signed by the president last May.
The first coalition comments focus on the US Department of Energy allowing firms that build experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews. That filing was submitted in early March, a month after DOE announced the "categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures."
Then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month unveiled a proposed rule to expedite NRC reviews of commercial nuclear power plant applications involving reactor designs already approved by DOE or the Department of Defense (DOD)—which Trump has dubbed the Department of War. That prompted more comments from Beyond Nuclear, NIRS, and allied groups last week.
"Along with the DOE's environmental 'free pass' policy, the whole 'expedited licensing' regime the administration is attempting to set up appears to be illegal," NIRS executive director Tim Judson, who co-authored the recent comments to the NRC, said Monday.
"The White House is trying to create a 'regulatory tunnel' around NRC's safety regulations," he warned. "That would mean DOE's biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers to our health and safety."
"And while the law allows the DOD to build its own nuclear reactors," Judson added, "it does not allow the NRC to skip safety reviews for civilian nuclear plants just because they use the same designs. The military routinely exposes its personnel to dangers that civilians are supposed to be protected from."
The coalition's latest filing details how the administration's actions are "inconsistent" with the Administrative Procedure Act, Atomic Energy Act, Energy Reorganization Act, and NEPA, "as well as the constitutional requirement for due process in a democratic society." It also emphasizes that nothing in Trump's orders "can excuse" the alleged legal violations.
"Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety," Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear, explained Monday.
"The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda," he continued. "Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn't have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them."
"This week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Even as US consumer sentiment hits record lows, gas prices remain stuck above $4.50 per gallon, and millions of Americans face cuts to basic assistance, Republicans in the US Senate are going to try to pass a massive spending bill that includes $1 billion for President Donald Trump's proposed luxury ballroom.
As Punchbowl News reported on Monday, Senate Democrats are planning to put the ballroom project in the spotlight and make supporting it as uncomfortable as possible for their Republican colleagues.
In a letter sent to fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slammed the GOP for giving priority to the president's vanity project amid economic suffering caused by his policies.
"At a time when Americans can't make ends meet, Republicans say 'Let them eat cake,'" Schumer wrote, "and then hand Trump a billion dollars to build a ballroom to serve it in. Americans do not need a ballroom. They need relief."
Schumer went on to blast his GOP colleagues as "Ballroom Republicans" who are "asking working families to pay the price while Donald Trump pockets the perks."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) similarly drew a contrast between the economic pain being felt by Americans with Trump's desire for a luxury ballroom to be constructed at taxpayers' expense.
"Gas is over $6 a gallon in many places," Murphy wrote in a social media post. "Farms are going bankrupt. Billions are being wasted on a war that’s making us weaker. And this week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that the proposed ballroom "perfectly sums up what Trump really cares about," noting that "while Americans are paying more for gas and millions are losing their healthcare, Trump can only think of his vanity ballroom."
During a Monday appearance on MS NOW, Boyle said "there is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom," and vowed to reverse the cuts to Medicaid that Republicans made last year with their budget law. The cuts are projected to result in 10 million Americans losing their insurance.
"There is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom that is nothing but a vanity project for Donald Trump." @CongBoyle pic.twitter.com/jgRUpuN7h8
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) May 11, 2026
\According to Punchbowl News, congressional Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly pleading with leadership to remove funding for the ballroom from the budget bill, as they think voting to fund the president's project would be politically toxic for them this fall.
"The ballroom security money is the biggest problem for the reconciliation bill, and it caught lots of GOP lawmakers off guard," Punchbowl News explained. "Moderate Republicans in both chambers are privately raising objections, bristling at the political downside of blessing Trump’s controversial ballroom project."
The Trump administration is apparently aware of Republicans' objections, and Punchbowl News' Laura Weiss reported on Monday that the White House is dispatching Secret Service Director Sean Curran to address lawmakers' concerns during a Tuesday luncheon.
Weiss noted that Republicans in swing districts "are privately balking at the reconciliation money for securing" the ballroom, but added that the Trump administration "really wants it."
“I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," said Saif Abu Keshek after he and Thiago Ávila were released by Israel without charges.
As the final two Global Sumud Flotilla members violently abducted at sea by Israeli forces last month made their way home following their release without charge, one of the activists said Sunday that the world must remember the thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila—whom Israel accused of having links to Hamas, without providing evidence—were seized in international waters off the coast of Greece during the night of April 29-30. They were among the roughly 175 people aboard the flotilla, which was attempting to break the decadeslong Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid to its people amid an ongoing genocide.
After suffering abuse that allegedly included broken ribs, noses, and other injuries, all of the flotilla members except Abu Keshek and Ávila were released. The pair was taken to Israel for further interrogation. Israel twice extended their detention for further interrogation, which, according to their legal representatives, included physical and psychological abuse amounting to torture. The men reportedly went on a hunger strike to protest their detention.
United Nations officials, Brazil, and Spain all called for the pair's release. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned their detention as "a serious affront to international law."
As Abu Keshek—a Spanish-Swedish national of Palestinian origin—arrived in Greece on Sunday following his deportation from Israel, he implored the world to remember the suffering of Palestinians imprisoned for their physical and intellectual resistance to Israeli oppression.
"I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," he said in Athens. "I am sure that the treatment I faced does not compare to the suffering they are going through, the testimonies we hear of their torture, of their violation on a daily basis. We have to continue mobilizing. We cannot forget the Palestinian prisoners.”
Ávila, meanwhile, transited through Egypt en route to his native Brazil after his deportation. He is expected to arrive in São Paulo on Monday afternoon. Ávila's mother, Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva, died while he was held in Israel.
Global Sumud Flotilla issued a statement following the activists' release, which it called "a victory over Israel’s attempts to criminalize the flotilla movement and smear international solidarity with Palestine as 'terrorism.'"
"If Israel had any evidence to support its outrageous accusations that the flotilla was affiliated with Hamas or engaged in unlawful activity, Thiago and Saif would not be released without charges," the statement says. "Their release further exposes these claims for what they are: politically motivated propaganda aimed at justifying violence against civilian flotilla participants and suppressing growing global resistance to Israel’s genocide and settler-colonial violence."
"However, their release underscores a painful reality: Thiago and Saif had governments, diplomatic channels, and international visibility advocating for them," Global Sumud Flotilla stressed. "Millions of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli occupation have no such political protection. More than 10,000 Palestinians remain imprisoned in Israeli dungeons and torture camps, subjected to starvation, abuse, isolation, medical neglect, sexual assault, and other cruel and degrading treatment, without international intervention or accountability."
Other Palestine defenders also used the activists' release to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
"We insist that the global mobilization for the release of Saif and Thiago must not stop but must instead grow for the liberation of all Palestinian prisoners jailed by the Zionist regime," said Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, "as well as Lebanese and Arab prisoners detained in its prisons, as well as the Palestinian prisoners and the prisoners for Palestine held in imperialist prisons around the world."