

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.

Coalition decries NRC allowing Holtec to break the law, by rushing ahead with sleeving of dangerously degraded steam generator tubes without agency authorization
In a stunning admission critics are calling the “Friday Night Massacre,” the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff acknowledged that it was watching, but had done nothing to stop, Holtec International, as it violated the regulatory conditions of its license at the Palisades atomic reactor.
Late Friday night, July 18, NRC Staff posted a report suggesting that Holtec was already actively performing its proposed steam generator tube sleeving repairs without agency approval.
“The NRC is not an Elliot Ness tough cop regulator. Instead, the 'Friday Night Massacre' at Palisades shows NRC and Holtec are more like Ness joining in with Al Capone on the St. Valentine's Day Massacre,” said nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, the environmental coalition’s expert witness on nuclear safety issues, such as the dangerously degraded steam generators.
The smoking gun NRC document, entitled “PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT – RESTART INSPECTION REPORT,” dated July 17, 2025, stated, in relevant part on Page 5 (Page 8 of 17 on the PDF counter):
“…The inspectors verified that the following NDE [Non-Destructive Examination] and repair/replacement activities were conducted appropriately per the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code or required standard, and that any potential indications and defects were identified and evaluated at the proper thresholds:…
…Steam Generator Tube Inspection Activities (IP Section 03.04)
Steam generator ‘A’ tube sleeving and eddy current testing…”
“If the existing ‘defueled’ Technical Specifications are in effect, Holtec cannot do any sleeving. Sleeving requires a Tech Spec change. So if Holtec has already sleeved, then they violated the current Tech Specs,” said Gundersen. “Holtec may claim that they did it at their own risk, but last I looked, you can’t break the law anticipating the law might change in the future. And the NRC tacitly acknowledges they knew the law was being broken,” Gundersen added.
"Of course, Holtec is not only proceeding at its own risk, but is putting the Great Lakes State, and the entire Great Lakes Basin, at existential risk, of a Chornobyl- or Fukushima-level radioactive catastrophe," said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, based in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
“It appears that Holtec could well already be rushing ahead with the sleeving of dangerously degraded steam generator tubes, even though our legal challenge against the adequacy of that proposed band-aid fix is still underway at the NRC licensing board,” said Wally Taylor, an attorney based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa representing the coalition.
“If Holtec is indeed already sleeving damaged steam generator tubes, this means the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceedings have been turned into a farce by NRC Staff’s complicity in the regulatory violations,” said Terry Lodge, an attorney based in Toledo, Ohio representing the coalition. “Holtec decides what to do, and when, while NRC maintains the mere illusion of regulation, and with a wink and nod, allows Holtec to proceed, in secret, despite our coalition’s official legal intervention opposing these dangerous shortcuts on safety,” Lodge added.
“Did NRC wait to publish the Palisades restart inspection report late on a Friday night, while we were busy meeting an entirely related deadline, hoping we would have less chance of noticing it?” asked Taylor.
Gundersen has previously testified in written declarations that the already degraded steam generators, in need of replacement for two decades, were made significantly worse by Holtec’s “rookie error” of neglecting to implement critical safety maintenance — wet layup — from 2022 to 2024, allowing corrosive chemical attack both inside and outside the exceedingly thin-walled steam generator tubes. Gundersen has also warned that a cascading failure of steam generator tubes could result in a reactor core meltdown, and catastrophic release of hazardous radioactivity into the environment.
Ironically, the coalition’s legal counsel were, at that very moment late Friday night, rebutting attacks on the coalition’s petition to intervene and request for hearings, regarding Holtec’s License Amendment Request (LAR) to the NRC, for permission to merely sleeve dangerously degraded steam generator tubes, rather than replace the steam generators in their entirety. The coalition had petitioned to intervene and requested a hearing on June 16, 2025. NRC Staff and Holtec then filed Answers, challenging the coalition’s petition and request. The coalition had until 11:59pm Eastern Time on Friday, July 18 to file its Reply to the Answers. The coalition met the deadline, defending its concerns regarding potentially dangerous operations to commence, potentially in the very near future, from using questionable repairs on its old, degraded steam generators, if NRC approves Holtec’s scheme.
The environmental coalition legally intervening against Holtec’s unprecedented, unneeded, exorbitantly expensive for the public, and extremely high risk for health, safety, and the environment, Palisades restart scheme includes: Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, and Three Mile Island Alert of Pennsylvania.
Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.
(301) 270-2209Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."