Source: United States Senator for Wyoming Cynthia Lummis
July 1, 2025
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) released the following statement after voting to advance President Trump’s historic One Big Beautiful Bill that shores up our southern border, makes tax cuts for hardworking Wyoming families permanent, and prioritizes Wyoming’s energy sector.
“Every weekend in Wyoming, constituents come up to me to share their priorities for Washington,” said Lummis. “They’re clear about what they expect: no tax increases, a secure border, elimination of waste and fraud in programs like Medicaid and SNAP, an end to Biden’s green energy scams, and most importantly, restoring America’s fiscal strength. While this bill certainly isn’t perfect, it’s a major step in the right direction that further unlocks Wyoming energy and delivers significant wins for working families across Wyoming. Congratulations, President Trump, we are one step closer to passing these reforms into law.”
Source: United States Senator for Wyoming Cynthia Lummis
Washington, D.C. – Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Chair of the Senate Western Caucus, today celebrated the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, highlighting numerous provisions that she and other Senate Western Caucus members championed that will benefit Wyoming and western states.
“The Senate passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill represents a tremendous victory for the west,” said Lummis. “As Chair of the Senate Western Caucus, I’m proud that our members’ relentless efforts secured critical wins that will further unleash American energy, strengthen rural economies, simplify coal leases, foster healthy forests, enhance wildfire prevention, increase on and offshore oil and gas production, and bring practical approaches back to federal land oversight. President Trump understands that a strong America starts with a strong American West – I’m looking forward to seeing him sign this bill into law.”
Background:
In January, Senate Western Caucus Chair Cynthia Lummis sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) about the critical importance of addressing western priorities in any potential upcoming budget reconciliation legislation, along with a list of member priorities to include in the bill.
The Senate Western Caucus is composed of 29 Senators west of the Mississippi committed to upholding the fundamental western principles of self-reliance, local decision-making, love of the land and the pioneer spirit.
Senate Western Caucus Wins:
Energy and Natural Resources
Expands onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing with mandatory minimum lease sales and extends drilling permit validity from 3 to 4 years.
Mandates six lease sales over ten years in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Increases revenue sharing from offshore drilling for Gulf of America states.
Enhances revenue sharing from Cook Inlet oil and gas leases for Alaska.
Land Management and Conservation
Strengthens wildfire management and prevention capabilities through expanded timber sales on public lands.
Introduces optional expedited environmental review process under NEPA, allowing project sponsors to pay fees for faster timelines (one year for Environmental Impact Statements, six months for Environmental Assessments).
Agricultural Support
Provides reimbursement programs for livestock losses due to predator attacks.
Expands producer access to the livestock forage disaster assistance program.
Extends and enhances estate tax exemptions with higher thresholds and permanent provisions to facilitate intergenerational transfer of family ranches.
Allows full expensing of certain business property, enabling ranchers to immediately deduct equipment and infrastructure investments.
Provides special depreciation allowances for qualified production property, offering larger and accelerated deductions for ranch growth and resilience investments.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
July 03, 2025
The lawmakers argue that only Congress has authority to create, restructure, and abolish federal departments and agencies by constitutional mandate and through a long-established legal precedent.
The Department of Education is statutorily mandated and cannot be unilaterally abolished by the President.
Text of Brief (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), along with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), House Assistant Majority Leader Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Representatives Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) and Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), led 174 of their colleagues in submitting an amicus brief in NAACP v. US, arguing to the United States District Court District of Maryland that President Trump’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) violate separation of powers and lack constitutional authority.
On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to abolish ED. This came after the Trump Administration carried out a series of actions dismantling the Department, including mass firings of ED employees, the termination of contracts for congressionally authorized programs and activities, and the removal of crucial protections for student loan borrowers, while announcing plans to reorganize key ED functions into different departments.
On March 24, 2025, a coalition of plaintiffs, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Maryland Council 3, and others, filed a lawsuit to halt the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to dismantle ED. The lawsuit argues that dismantling a Congressionally created federal agency requires Congressional approval.
The lawmakers wrote: “Since the Department was created, presidents have taken different views of the Department and the role the federal government should play in education policy, but none has attempted what President Trump is attempting here: to unilaterally shutter the department… In short, the ‘President’s power, if any, to issue an order’ abolishing the Education Department ‘must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.’ Here, President Trump’s effort to unilaterally dismantle the Education Department defies the express will of Congress. Defendants lack the power to do what only Congress can do—restructure the federal government by shuttering a government department.”
In addition to Leader Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senator Warren, the brief was signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The brief was signed by Speaker Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Representatives Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), Donald S. Beyer Jr. (D-Va.), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-Ga.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Or.), Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), Salus O. Carbajal (D-Calif.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Troy A. Carter, Sr. (D-La.), Ed Case (D-Haw.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.), Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-Mo.), James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Herbert C. Conaway, Jr. (D-N.J.), J.Luis Correa (D-Calif.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Tex.), Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), Madeline Dean (D-Pa.), Diana DeGette, (D-Colo.), Suzan K. DelBene (D-Wash.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Maxine Dexter (D-Or.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), Sarah Elfreth (D-M.d.), Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Shomari Figures (D-Ala.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Tex.), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Tex.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), Pablo José Hernández (D-Puerto Rico), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Steny H. Hoyer (D-M.d.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Glenn F. Ivey (D-M.d.), Jonathan L.Jackson (D-Ill.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-Ga.), Julie Johnson (D-Tex.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif), William Keating (D-Mass.), Robin L. Kelly (D-Ill.), Timothy M. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), John B. Larson (D-Colo.), George Latimer (D-N.Y.), Summer L. Lee (D-Pa.), Susie Lee (D-Nev.), Teresa Leger Fernández (N.M.), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), Sam T. Liccardo (D-Calif.), Ted W. Lieu (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), John W. Mannion (D-N.Y.), Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), April McClain Delaney (D-M.d.), Jennifer L. McClellan (D-Va.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), James P. McGovern (D-Mass.), LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), Robert J. Menendez (D-N.J.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Joseph D. Morelle (D-N.Y.), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Frank J. Mrvan (D-Ind.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Scott H. Peters (D-Calif.), Brittany Petterson (D-Colo.), Chellie Pingree (D-Me.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Delia C.Ramirez (D-Ill.), Emily Randall (D-Wash.), Deborah K. Ross (D-N.C.), Andrea Salinas (D-Or.), Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Eric Sorenson (D-Ill.), Melanie A Stansbury (D-N.M.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Bennie G.Thompson (D-Miss.), Mike Thompson (D-Cal.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Norma J. Torres (D-Calif.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), Derek T. Tran (D-Calif.), Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif), Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Maxine Walters (D-Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), Frederica S.Wilson (D-Fla.).
Senator Warren launched the Save Our Schools campaign in a coordinated effort to fight back against President Trump’s attempts to abolish the Department of Education:
On June 10, 2025, Senator Warren met with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and delivered over 1,000 letters to McMahon that the senator had received from people in all 50 states who were worried about the Secretary’s efforts to dismantle ED.
On June 9, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in pushing the Acting Inspector General of ED to open an investigation into new information obtained by her office revealing that DOGE may have gained access to two FSA internal systems, in addition to sensitive borrower data.
On May 20, 2025, Senator Warren and 27 other senators pushed for full funding for the Office of Federal Student Aid.
On May 20, 2025, Senator Warren and 27 other senators pushed for full funding to the Office of Federal Student Aid.
On May 14, 2025, Senator Warren led a Senate forum entitled “Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families,” highlighting the consequences of Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education (ED) and President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” for working- and middle-class students and borrowers.
On May 13, 2025, Senator Warren agreed to meet with Education Secretary Linda McMahon and promised to bring questions and stories from Americans across the country to highlight how the Trump administration’s attacks on education are hurting American families.
On May 6, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren highlighted the consequences of President Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education for American families in a Senate forum.
On April 24, 2025, Senator Warren launched a new investigation into the harms of President Trump’s attacks on the Department of Education, seeking information on the impact of the Trump administration’s actions from the members of twelve leading organizations representing schools, parents, teachers, students, borrowers, and researchers.
On April 10, 2025, following a request led by Senator Warren, the Department of Education’s Acting Inspector General agreed to open an investigation into the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education.
On April 2, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono, along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Department of Government Efficiency’s proposed plan to replace the Department of Education’s federal student aid call centers with generative artificial intelligence chatbots.
On April 2, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren launched the Save Our Schools campaign to fight back against the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) and highlight the consequences for every student and public school in America.
On March 27, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led a letter to Acting Department of Education Inspector General (IG) René Rocque requesting that the IG conduct an investigation of the Trump Administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education.
On March 20, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders led a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to slash the capacity of Federal Student Aid to handle student aid complaints.
On February 24, 2025, in a response to Senator Warren, Secretary McMahon gave her first public admission that she “wholeheartedly” agreed with Trump’s plans to abolish the Department of Education.
On February 11, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Andy Kim sent Linda McMahon, Secretary-Designate for the U.S. Department of Education, a 12-page letter with 65 questions on McMahon’s policy views in advance of her nomination hearing.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Moscow, July 3 (Xinhua) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said he plans to hold a telephone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday.
“Today I will talk with the President of the United States,” said V. Putin during his visit to the exhibition of the competition of growing Russian brands at the national center “Russia” as part of the forum “Strong ideas for a new time” taking place in Moscow.
The 5th forum “Strong Ideas for a New Time”, organized by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Roscongress Foundation with the support of the state corporation VEB.RF, is being held at the national center “Russia” on July 2 and 3. The goal of the forum is to find and support promising projects and proposals. –0–
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Moscow, July 3 (Xinhua) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said he plans to hold a telephone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday.
“Today I will talk with the President of the United States,” said V. Putin during his visit to the exhibition of the competition of growing Russian brands at the national center “Russia” as part of the forum “Strong ideas for a new time” taking place in Moscow.
The 5th forum “Strong Ideas for a New Time”, organized by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Roscongress Foundation with the support of the state corporation VEB.RF, is being held at the national center “Russia” on July 2 and 3. The goal of the forum is to find and support promising projects and proposals. –0–
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Maxwell Frost Florida (10th District)
June 26, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Representatives Maxwell Frost (FL-10) and Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) have introduced legislation on the one-year anniversary of the disastrous City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court decision, which allows cities to criminalize homelessness. The Housing Not Handcuffs Act aims to prohibit the criminalization of homeless persons on public lands when there is nowhere else to go.
“Since the Grants Pass decision, cities across the country have passed over 200 bills to criminalize homelessness, including in my own district. These policies don’t solve homelessness instead they dehumanize our unhoused, saddle them with criminal records, and make it even harder for them to find stable housing. It’s a vicious cycle that the Housing Not Handcuffs Act seeks to end,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost. “At a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high and Trump’s Big Ugly Bill will only help the rich get richer and the working poor get poorer— we’re fighting to make sure everyone has access to safe, decent, and affordable housing, not handcuffs.”
“Every single person in the richest country in the world should be able to have a roof over their head and a safe place to sleep, it’s that simple,” said Rep. Jayapal. “There is nowhere in this country where you can pay rent on a minimum wage salary. By criminalizing aspects of homelessness, cities and states across this country are only creating greater barriers for people to access housing — something that is already far too scarce. Fining people who already can’t afford to live makes no sense and will only result in longer-term homelessness.”
In 2024, homelessness increased by 18 percent nationwide, with a record high of 771,480 people experiencing homelessness. At the same time, there is a nationwide shortage of 200,000 shelter beds and a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes.
Since the Grants Pass ruling, over 260 anti-homeless laws have been passed by cities and states. Criminalizing homelessness creates greater barriers to accessing housing. Typically, these punishments come with fines, which create further financial strain on people who can already not afford the basics, and may create a criminal record, making it more difficult to get a job or apply for housing.
The Housing Not Handcuffs Act will ensure that people who are homeless cannot be criminally or civilly punished for:
Living on federal lands unless safe, decent, accessible shelter is available;
Asking for or sharing food, water, money, or other donations in public places;
Praying, meditating, or practicing religion in public spaces;
Occupying a lawfully parked motor vehicle;
Storing their possessions and enjoying privacy in their personal property to the same degree as property in a private dwelling.
The legislation is sponsored by Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), Jr (GA-04), Summer Lee (PA-12), James P. McGovern (MA-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), and Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07).
It is also endorsed by A Way Home America; American Civil Liberties Union; Catalyst Montana; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO); Equal Justice Under Law ; Fines & Fees Justice Center; Fund for Empowerment; Funders Together to End Homelessness; Health Students Taking Action Together (H-STAT); Homeless Action Center; Homeless and Housing Coalition of Kentucky; Homeless Rights Advocacy Project; Hygiene4All; Invisible People; Justice in Aging; Juvenile Law Center; Kairos Center for Religions, Rights and Social Justice; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Legal Action Center; Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency; Miriam’s Kitchen; Mountain State Justice, Inc.; National Alliance to End Homelessness; National Coalition for the Homeless; National Harm Reduction Coalition; National Health Care for the Homeless Council; National HIV/AIDS Housing Coalition; National Homelessness Law Center, National Housing Law Project; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Vehicle Residency Collective ; One Love World ; Open Table Nashville ; People’s Action; Prison Policy Initiative; RESULTS Educational Fund; Sexual Violence Law Center; Southern Poverty Law Center; Street Books; Street Democracy; University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic; VOCAL-TX; Voice of the Experienced; Voters Organized to Educate; Western Regional Advocacy Project.
SACRAMENTO – Ahead of an expected record-breaking holiday weekend for travel, Californians are seeing the lowest prices at the pump in years. This comes after Governor Gavin Newsom has taken repeated actions to increase transparency on Big Oil’s balance sheets — putting people over record profits — and another that will give the state more tools to require petroleum refiners backfill supplies and plan ahead for maintenance, helping keep supply and demand more stable.
Additionally, Republicans spent the last 6+ months fearmongering about a supposed “65 cent jump” in price at the pump on July 1, which DID NOT happen. In fact, prices at the pump have gone down leading up to, on, and after July 1, 2025 — the opposite of what Big Oil Republicans claimed would happen.
Press releases, Recent news
Recent news
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – As House Republicans vote on the measure as soon as tonight, President Trump’s “big beautiful” national debt-adding bill is a massive tax break for the wealthiest Americans, at the cost of programs and services used by everyday families. It gives tax…
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments: Tamie McGowen, of Folsom, has been appointed Senior Advisor for Strategy and Operations for the California State Transportation Agency. McGowen has been Deputy Secretary of…
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement regarding the death of California Highway Patrol Officer Miguel Cano:“Officer Miguel Cano dedicated his life to serving our communities, and his passing is a heartbreaking loss for the state and…
Louisville, KY – On May 6, 2025, a federal grand jury in Louisville charged a total of 20 defendants from across Kentucky and California in 3 separate indictments involving methamphetamine and fentanyl trafficking offenses and firearms offenses. On May 21, 2025, a federal grand jury charged 4 defendants, 2 of whom were previously charged, in an indictment involving methamphetamine and fentanyl trafficking and money laundering offenses. The indictments charging all 22 defendants were the result of a lengthy investigation conducted by multiple law enforcement agencies.
U.S. Attorney Kyle G. Bumgarner of the Western District of Kentucky, Acting Special Agent in Charge Olivia Olson of the FBI Louisville Field Office, Special Agent in Charge Rana Saoud of the Homeland Security Investigations Nashville, Special Agent in Charge John Nokes of the ATF Louisville Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Jim Scott of the DEA Louisville Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Karen Wingerd of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations, Cincinnati Field Office, U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge Lesley Allison of the Pittsburgh Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chicago Director of Field Operations Lafonda Sutton-Burke, Commissioner Phillip Burnett, Jr. of the Kentucky State Police, and Chief Paul Humphrey of the Louisville Metro Police Department made the announcement.
The following 9 defendants were charged in the first indictment on May 6, 2025:
James Havlicheck, 34, of California
Rodney Hollie, 38, of California
Joseph Nguyen, 38, of California
Minh Ngo, 40, of California
Kevin Nguyen, 30, of California
Johnathan Nguyen, 35, of California
Ordell Smith, Jr., 38, of Louisville
Vanray O’Neal, 38, of Louisville
Darren Render, 33, of Louisville
According to the first indictment, Havlicheck, Hollie, Joseph Nguyen, Ngo, Kevin Nguyen, and Johnathan Nguyen were charged with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine for a conspiracy beginning as early as April 2024 and continuing through July 19, 2024. Havlicheck and Ngo were also charged with one count of distribution of methamphetamine 50 grams or more.
Smith, Jr. was charged with four counts of distribution of methamphetamine 50 grams or more.
O’Neal was charged with three counts of distribution of methamphetamine 50 grams or more and two counts of firearms trafficking.
Render was charged with four counts of firearms trafficking, four counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, three counts of distribution of fentanyl, one count of distribution of heroin, and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Render was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offense.
On April 2, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Render was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
If convicted, Havlicheck, Hollie, Joseph Nguyen, Ngo, Kevin Nguyen, Johnathan Nguyen, Smith, Jr., and O’Neal face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Render faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. All the defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.
The following 9 defendants were charged in the second indictment on May 6, 2025:
Antonio Taylor, 39, of Louisville
Terry Matthews, 44, of Louisville
Dylan Bradley, 21, of Louisville
Demetrius Brown, 42, of Louisville
Dominic McCray, 30, of Louisville
Joshua James, 42, of Louisville
Gregory Jackson, 34, of Louisville
Thai Quoc Tran, 24, of Louisville
Devon Wilson, 43, of Louisville
According to the second indictment, Taylor, Matthews, Bradley, Brown, McCray, James, and Jackson were charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl for a conspiracy beginning as early as August 21, 2024, and continuing through October 23, 2024.
Taylor was also charged with one count of distribution of 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, eight counts of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Taylor was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On or about May 21, 2018, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Taylor was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and trafficking in a controlled substance first degree unspecified less than ten dosage units (two counts).
Matthews was also charged with one count of distribution of 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, three counts of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, two counts of distribution of fentanyl, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, one count firearms trafficking, one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and one count of distribution of a controlled substance. Matthews was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offense.
On March 9, 2018, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Matthews was convicted of flagrant non-support.
Bradley was also charged with three counts of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, one count of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Brown was also charged with one count of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, one count of distribution of a fentanyl mixture, and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Brown was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On or about July 17, 2017, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Brown was convicted of assault in the second degree, criminal mischief in the first degree, receiving stolen firearm, and wanton endangerment in the first degree.
McCray was also charged with one count of possession of an unregistered firearm.
James was also charged with one count of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture.
Jackson was also charged with one count of distribution of 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture.
Tran was also charged with one count of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
Wilson was also charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Wilson was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On July 16, 2024, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Wilson was convicted of flagrant non-support.
On January 9, 2017, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Wilson was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, schedule I heroin less than two grams.
If convicted, Taylor, Matthews, Bradley, Brown, James, Jackson, and Tran face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. McCray faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Wilson faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.
Matthews and McCray have not been federally arrested and are not yet before the Court.
The following 2 defendants were charged in the third indictment on May 6, 2025:
Mark Foster, Jr., 33, of Louisville
Devante Rice, 30, of Louisville
Foster was charged with two counts of distribution of controlled substances, nine counts of distribution of fentanyl, ten counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, seven counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, one count of illegal possession of a machine gun, and one count of firearms trafficking. Foster was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On or about March 30, 2018, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Foster was convicted of receiving stolen property (firearm) and illegal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, heroin.
On or about June 15, 2021, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Foster was convicted of complicity to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, opioids, complicity to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, methamphetamine, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and tampering with physical evidence.
Rice was charged with eleven counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, one count of firearms trafficking, and two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm. Rice was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On January 10, 2014, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Rice was convicted of burglary in the second degree and receiving stolen property over $500.
On April 30, 2019, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Rice was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.
On August 8, 2023, in Jefferson Circuit Court, Rice was convicted of complicity to possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, theft by unlawful taking – firearm (two counts), and theft by unlawful taking over $500 but under $10,000.
If convicted, Foster faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 70 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Rice faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison on each count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and the single count of firearms trafficking and a 10-year maximum sentence for the two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.
The following 4 defendants were charged in the fourth indictment on May 21, 2025:
Antonio Taylor
Joshua James
Celotia Evans, 39, of Louisville
Jaremei Hinkle, 24, of Louisville
According to the fourth indictment, Taylor, James, Evans, and Hinkle were charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl for a conspiracy beginning as early as June 2024 and continuing through July 11, 2024.
Hinkle was also charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute of 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture.
James was also charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture.
Taylor is also charged with engaging in monetary transactions derived from specific unlawful activities and laundering of a money instrument during his purchase of a vehicle.
If convicted, Taylor, James, Evans, and Hinkle face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. All the defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.
There is no parole in the federal system.
Evans and Hinkle have not been federally arrested and are not yet before the Court.
The cases are being investigated by the FBI, HSI, ATF, DEA, IRS-CI, CBP, USPIS, KSP, and LMPD.
These cases were investigated and prosecuted by the Kentucky Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF) as part of Operation Take Back America. HSTFs, which were established by President Trump in Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, are joint operations led by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Operation Take Back America is a nationwide federal initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
TALLINN, Estonia, July 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S), a next-generation blockchain project, today announced it has entered the final four weeks of its limited presale, with over $6 million raised and more than 13,650 users participating. This milestone marks a key moment for the BTC-S ecosystem, which aims to redefine accessibility in crypto through mobile mining, smart contract integration, and energy-efficient consensus design.
The token is currently priced at $10, with the next phase set to increase to $11 and an official launch price of $20. A 6% bonus remains available for eligible presale participants.
BTC-S Builds the Future
Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S) flips the script. With its dual-layer blockchain design, a hybrid consensus that blends Proof-of-Work with Delegated Proof-of-Stake, and energy-efficient infrastructure, BTC-S is designed from the ground up to support scalability, mobile-first mining, and lightning-fast smart contract performance. The system achieves 10,000 TPS with finality in 2 seconds, positioning it as one of the fastest decentralized platforms in development today.
BTC-S: Wealth-Building Meets Modern Infrastructure
Let’s talk about what truly makes Bitcoin Solaris a potential wealth-creation engine. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies that require expensive equipment and deep technical skills, BTC-S makes mining accessible to everyone through the upcoming Solaris Nova app.
Using a refined adaptive algorithm and smart validator rotation, mining is optimized for smartphones. And that’s not speculation. It’s already live in testing and supports efficient participation with minimal energy use. Whether you’re in a big city or a rural area, mobile mining with BTC-S is designed to be truly inclusive. You can even preview your potential earnings using their mining calculator.
But that’s just the beginning. BTC-S is also pushing boundaries with smart contract support and a growing set of DeFi functionalities. It’s not just a coin. It’s an ecosystem with room to build.
Full integration with the Solaris Nova App for on-the-go mining and governance
And let’s not forget the excitement brewing in the crypto influencer space. The team behind BTC-S has been getting attention from prominent channels. A full review by Crypto Show dives into what’s making Bitcoin Solaris one of the most talked-about launches of the year.
The Presale: A Window That’s Closing Fast
Investors love numbers. Here are a few worth paying attention to.
Current price: $10
Next phase: $11
Launch price: $20
Bonus: 6%
Over $6 million raised, and more than 13,650 users have joined
And this isn’t one of those endless presales that drag on for a year. The entire event is capped at just 90 days. That means only around 4 weeks remain to get in before BTC-S goes live and enters the next phase. With this kind of momentum, it’s no wonder some are calling it the shortest presale in crypto history.
To receive your tokens on launch day, Bitcoin Solaris recommends using Trust Wallet or Metamask for smooth and secure delivery. These platforms ensure seamless distribution without requiring a connection during the presale phase.
You can track everything directly from the main platform at bitcoinsolaris.com.
BTC-S Tokenomics: Designed for Scarcity and Growth
If you’re wondering what makes BTC-S truly different from Bitcoin, it starts with distribution. While Bitcoin mining now rewards whales, Bitcoin Solaris designed its tokenomics to favor longevity and fair access. The entire structure is focused on real utility, scarcity, and growth.
BTC-S follows a fixed-supply model with a maximum of 21 million tokens. The breakdown is worth a glance and can be found on their official tokenomics page, but here’s a quick preview:
66.66% reserved for mining, distributed over 90 years
20% allocated to the presale
The rest is dedicated to liquidity, community, marketing, and development
This long-term vision isn’t just fluff. It’s embedded into how BTC-S operates. Fair, structured, and driven by actual participation.
In addition, Holders can now enjoy daily mini-games from Bitcoin Solaris, unlocking new chances to earn every day. Explore how it works here.
Final Thoughts: Trump Lit the Spark, But BTC-S Carries the Torch
Trump’s Bitcoin comments are the kind of headlines that draw eyes. But Bitcoin Solaris is offering something stronger than soundbites. It’s offering architecture, access, and opportunity. For those who missed Bitcoin’s early years and feel like they arrived too late, BTC-S may just be that rare second chance.
And it’s not just a theory. It’s live. It’s active. And it’s fast approaching a launch that could redefine what early adoption means in this cycle.
Disclaimer:This content is provided by Bitcoin Solaris. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented.We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article.This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital.It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose.Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release.In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.
Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
TALLINN, Estonia, July 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S), a next-generation blockchain project, today announced it has entered the final four weeks of its limited presale, with over $6 million raised and more than 13,650 users participating. This milestone marks a key moment for the BTC-S ecosystem, which aims to redefine accessibility in crypto through mobile mining, smart contract integration, and energy-efficient consensus design.
The token is currently priced at $10, with the next phase set to increase to $11 and an official launch price of $20. A 6% bonus remains available for eligible presale participants.
BTC-S Builds the Future
Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S) flips the script. With its dual-layer blockchain design, a hybrid consensus that blends Proof-of-Work with Delegated Proof-of-Stake, and energy-efficient infrastructure, BTC-S is designed from the ground up to support scalability, mobile-first mining, and lightning-fast smart contract performance. The system achieves 10,000 TPS with finality in 2 seconds, positioning it as one of the fastest decentralized platforms in development today.
BTC-S: Wealth-Building Meets Modern Infrastructure
Let’s talk about what truly makes Bitcoin Solaris a potential wealth-creation engine. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies that require expensive equipment and deep technical skills, BTC-S makes mining accessible to everyone through the upcoming Solaris Nova app.
Using a refined adaptive algorithm and smart validator rotation, mining is optimized for smartphones. And that’s not speculation. It’s already live in testing and supports efficient participation with minimal energy use. Whether you’re in a big city or a rural area, mobile mining with BTC-S is designed to be truly inclusive. You can even preview your potential earnings using their mining calculator.
But that’s just the beginning. BTC-S is also pushing boundaries with smart contract support and a growing set of DeFi functionalities. It’s not just a coin. It’s an ecosystem with room to build.
Full integration with the Solaris Nova App for on-the-go mining and governance
And let’s not forget the excitement brewing in the crypto influencer space. The team behind BTC-S has been getting attention from prominent channels. A full review by Crypto Show dives into what’s making Bitcoin Solaris one of the most talked-about launches of the year.
The Presale: A Window That’s Closing Fast
Investors love numbers. Here are a few worth paying attention to.
Current price: $10
Next phase: $11
Launch price: $20
Bonus: 6%
Over $6 million raised, and more than 13,650 users have joined
And this isn’t one of those endless presales that drag on for a year. The entire event is capped at just 90 days. That means only around 4 weeks remain to get in before BTC-S goes live and enters the next phase. With this kind of momentum, it’s no wonder some are calling it the shortest presale in crypto history.
To receive your tokens on launch day, Bitcoin Solaris recommends using Trust Wallet or Metamask for smooth and secure delivery. These platforms ensure seamless distribution without requiring a connection during the presale phase.
You can track everything directly from the main platform at bitcoinsolaris.com.
BTC-S Tokenomics: Designed for Scarcity and Growth
If you’re wondering what makes BTC-S truly different from Bitcoin, it starts with distribution. While Bitcoin mining now rewards whales, Bitcoin Solaris designed its tokenomics to favor longevity and fair access. The entire structure is focused on real utility, scarcity, and growth.
BTC-S follows a fixed-supply model with a maximum of 21 million tokens. The breakdown is worth a glance and can be found on their official tokenomics page, but here’s a quick preview:
66.66% reserved for mining, distributed over 90 years
20% allocated to the presale
The rest is dedicated to liquidity, community, marketing, and development
This long-term vision isn’t just fluff. It’s embedded into how BTC-S operates. Fair, structured, and driven by actual participation.
In addition, Holders can now enjoy daily mini-games from Bitcoin Solaris, unlocking new chances to earn every day. Explore how it works here.
Final Thoughts: Trump Lit the Spark, But BTC-S Carries the Torch
Trump’s Bitcoin comments are the kind of headlines that draw eyes. But Bitcoin Solaris is offering something stronger than soundbites. It’s offering architecture, access, and opportunity. For those who missed Bitcoin’s early years and feel like they arrived too late, BTC-S may just be that rare second chance.
And it’s not just a theory. It’s live. It’s active. And it’s fast approaching a launch that could redefine what early adoption means in this cycle.
Disclaimer:This content is provided by Bitcoin Solaris. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented.We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article.This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital.It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose.Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release.In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.
Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
TALLINN, Estonia, July 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S), a next-generation blockchain project, today announced it has entered the final four weeks of its limited presale, with over $6 million raised and more than 13,650 users participating. This milestone marks a key moment for the BTC-S ecosystem, which aims to redefine accessibility in crypto through mobile mining, smart contract integration, and energy-efficient consensus design.
The token is currently priced at $10, with the next phase set to increase to $11 and an official launch price of $20. A 6% bonus remains available for eligible presale participants.
BTC-S Builds the Future
Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S) flips the script. With its dual-layer blockchain design, a hybrid consensus that blends Proof-of-Work with Delegated Proof-of-Stake, and energy-efficient infrastructure, BTC-S is designed from the ground up to support scalability, mobile-first mining, and lightning-fast smart contract performance. The system achieves 10,000 TPS with finality in 2 seconds, positioning it as one of the fastest decentralized platforms in development today.
BTC-S: Wealth-Building Meets Modern Infrastructure
Let’s talk about what truly makes Bitcoin Solaris a potential wealth-creation engine. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies that require expensive equipment and deep technical skills, BTC-S makes mining accessible to everyone through the upcoming Solaris Nova app.
Using a refined adaptive algorithm and smart validator rotation, mining is optimized for smartphones. And that’s not speculation. It’s already live in testing and supports efficient participation with minimal energy use. Whether you’re in a big city or a rural area, mobile mining with BTC-S is designed to be truly inclusive. You can even preview your potential earnings using their mining calculator.
But that’s just the beginning. BTC-S is also pushing boundaries with smart contract support and a growing set of DeFi functionalities. It’s not just a coin. It’s an ecosystem with room to build.
Full integration with the Solaris Nova App for on-the-go mining and governance
And let’s not forget the excitement brewing in the crypto influencer space. The team behind BTC-S has been getting attention from prominent channels. A full review by Crypto Show dives into what’s making Bitcoin Solaris one of the most talked-about launches of the year.
The Presale: A Window That’s Closing Fast
Investors love numbers. Here are a few worth paying attention to.
Current price: $10
Next phase: $11
Launch price: $20
Bonus: 6%
Over $6 million raised, and more than 13,650 users have joined
And this isn’t one of those endless presales that drag on for a year. The entire event is capped at just 90 days. That means only around 4 weeks remain to get in before BTC-S goes live and enters the next phase. With this kind of momentum, it’s no wonder some are calling it the shortest presale in crypto history.
To receive your tokens on launch day, Bitcoin Solaris recommends using Trust Wallet or Metamask for smooth and secure delivery. These platforms ensure seamless distribution without requiring a connection during the presale phase.
You can track everything directly from the main platform at bitcoinsolaris.com.
BTC-S Tokenomics: Designed for Scarcity and Growth
If you’re wondering what makes BTC-S truly different from Bitcoin, it starts with distribution. While Bitcoin mining now rewards whales, Bitcoin Solaris designed its tokenomics to favor longevity and fair access. The entire structure is focused on real utility, scarcity, and growth.
BTC-S follows a fixed-supply model with a maximum of 21 million tokens. The breakdown is worth a glance and can be found on their official tokenomics page, but here’s a quick preview:
66.66% reserved for mining, distributed over 90 years
20% allocated to the presale
The rest is dedicated to liquidity, community, marketing, and development
This long-term vision isn’t just fluff. It’s embedded into how BTC-S operates. Fair, structured, and driven by actual participation.
In addition, Holders can now enjoy daily mini-games from Bitcoin Solaris, unlocking new chances to earn every day. Explore how it works here.
Final Thoughts: Trump Lit the Spark, But BTC-S Carries the Torch
Trump’s Bitcoin comments are the kind of headlines that draw eyes. But Bitcoin Solaris is offering something stronger than soundbites. It’s offering architecture, access, and opportunity. For those who missed Bitcoin’s early years and feel like they arrived too late, BTC-S may just be that rare second chance.
And it’s not just a theory. It’s live. It’s active. And it’s fast approaching a launch that could redefine what early adoption means in this cycle.
Disclaimer:This content is provided by Bitcoin Solaris. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented.We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article.This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital.It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose.Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release.In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.
Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
President Donald Trump travels to Iowa on Thursday to kick off celebrations marking America’s 250th anniversary next year and to tout recent trade and legislative actions to heartland voters who helped propel his return to the White House.
Trump will deliver a campaign-style speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines, a familiar stop for presidential candidates in the early primary state. Trump won Iowa’s 2024 Republican caucuses by a historically large margin and carried the state by 13 percentage points in the general election.
His latest visit comes ahead of a Friday deadline he set for Congress to pass his sweeping tax and spending legislation, a cornerstone of his second-term domestic agenda that touches everything from immigration to energy policy.
In remarks mixing patriotism and policy, Trump will aim to reassure Iowa’s voters that his administration is defending their interests and delivering tangible results, according to a person with knowledge of the speech.
Trump’s trade policies have whipsawed agricultural communities in Iowa, creating economic uncertainty and testing loyalties. Iowa farmers have been hit hard, especially with China’s retaliatory tariffs slashing soybean exports and prices.
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday announcing his trip, Trump called Iowa “one of my favorite places in the world.”
“I’ll also tell you some of the GREAT things I’ve already done on Trade, especially as it relates to Farmers. You are going to be very happy with what I say,” Trump said.
At recent Republican town halls in Iowa, tensions flared as farmers and constituents pressed congressional leaders, including Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, to push back against Trump’s retaliatory tariffs.
Some Republicans also worry that deep cuts to the Medicaid health program in their sweeping tax bill will hurt the party’s prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump has made several memorable trips to the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In 2015, the reality TV star and presidential candidate gave children rides on his personal helicopter as he aimed to overshadow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
In 2023, Trump’s private jet buzzed low over the crowds in another flashy power move, stealing the spotlight from primary rival Ron DeSantis as he campaigned on the ground below.
Israel’s attack on Iran last month and the US bombing of the country’s nuclear facilities, the first-ever direct US attacks on Iranian soil, were meant to cripple Tehran’s strategic capabilities and reset the regional balance.
The strikes came after 18 months during which Israel had effectively dismantled Hamas in Gaza, dealt a devastating blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, weakened the Houthis in Yemen, and seen the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria – a longstanding and key Iranian ally.
From a military standpoint, these were remarkable achievements. But they failed to deliver the strategic outcome Israeli and US leaders had long hoped for: the collapse of Iran’s influence and the weakening of its regime.
Instead, the confrontation exposed a deeper miscalculation. Iran’s power isn’t built on impulse or vulnerable proxies alone. It is decentralised, ideologically entrenched and designed to endure. While battered, the Islamic Republic did not fall. And now, it may be more determined – and more dangerous – than before.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Israel’s attack – dubbed “operation rising lion” – began with attacks on Iranian radar systems, followed by precision airstrikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and senior military officers and scientists. Israel spent roughly US$1.45 (£1.06 billion) billion in the first two days and in the first week of strikes on Iran, costs hit US$5 billion, with daily spending at US$725 million: US$593 million on offensive operations and US$132 million on defence and mobilization.
The day after the US strikes, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke with Donald Trump about a ceasefire. He and his generals were reportedly keen to bring the conflict to a speedy end. Reports suggest that Netanyahu wanted to avoid a lengthy war of attrition that Israel could not sustain, and was already looking for an exit strategy.
Crucially, the Iranian regime remained intact. Rather than inciting revolt, the war rallied nationalist sentiment. Opposition movements remain fractured and lack a common platform or domestic legitimacy. Hopes of a popular uprising that might topple the regime expressed by both Trump and Netanyahu were misplaced.
In the aftermath, Iranian authorities launched a sweeping crackdown on suspected dissenters and what it referred to as “spies”. Former activists, reformists and loosely affiliated protest organisers were arrested or interrogated. What was meant to fracture the regime instead reinforced its grip on power.
Most notably, Iran’s parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme – both civilian and potentially military – without oversight.
Perhaps the clearest misreading came from Israel and the US treating Syria as a template. The 2024 fall of Bashar al-Assad was hailed as a turning point. His successor, Ahmed al-Sharaa – a little-known opposition figure, former al-Qaeda insurgent and IS affiliate – was rebranded as a pragmatic reformer, who Trump praised as “attractive” and “tough”.
For western and Israeli strategists, Syria offered both a way to weaken Iran and a blueprint of how eventual regime change could play out: collapse the regime, install cooperative leadership in a swift reordering process. But this analogy was dangerously flawed. Iran’s stronger institutions, military depth, resistance-driven identity and existence made it a fundamentally different and more resilient state.
Both Israel and Iran, however, came away with new intelligence. Israel learned that its missile defences and economic resilience were not built for prolonged, multi-front warfare. Iran, meanwhile, gained valuable insight into how far its arsenal – drones, missiles and regional proxies – could reach, and where its limits lie.
Most of Iran’s drones and missiles were intercepted — up to 99% in the cases of drones — exposing critical weaknesses in accuracy, penetration, and survivability against modern air defenses. Yet the few that did break through caused significant damage in Tel Aviv, striking residential areas and critical infrastructure.
This war was not only a clash of weapons but a real-time stress test of each side’s strategic depth. Iran may now adjust its doctrine accordingly – prioritising survivability, mobility and precision in anticipation of future conflicts.
Israel’s vulnerabilities
Internally, Israel entered the war politically fractured and socially strained. Netanyahu’s far-right coalition was already under fire for attempting to weaken judicial independence. The war has temporarily united the country, but the economic and human toll have reignited deeper concerns.
Israel’s geographic and demographic constraints have become clear. Its high-tech economy, tightly integrated with global markets, could not weather prolonged instability. And critically, the damage inflicted by the US bombing was more limited than hoped for. While Washington joined in the initial strikes, it resisted deeper involvement, partly to avoid broader regional escalation and largely because of the lack of domestic appetite for war and high potential for energy inflation, if Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz.
What happens now?
The war of 2025 did not produce peace. It produced recalibration. Israel emerges militarily capable but politically shaken and economically strained. Iran, though damaged, stands more unified, with fewer international constraints on its nuclear ambitions. Its crackdown on dissent, withdrawal from IAEA oversight, and deepening ties to rival powers suggest a regime preparing not for collapse, but for survival, perhaps even confrontation.
The broader lesson is sobering. Regime change cannot be engineered through precision strikes. Tactical brilliance does not guarantee strategic victory. And the assumption that Iran could unravel like Syria was not strategy, it was hubris.
Both sides now better understand each other’s strengths and limits, a clarity that could deter future war – or make the next one more dangerous. In a region shaped by trauma and shifting power, mistaking resistance for weakness or pause for peace remains the gravest miscalculation.
Bamo Nouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth
Donald Trump is continuing his run of political wins after his keynote legislation, nicknamed the ‘big beautiful bill’, squeaked through the Senate.
While the bill, which includes major cuts in tax and government spending, must now go back to the House of Representatives for another vote, passing the upper house is highly significant. Trump lost the support of just three Republican senators, and with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President J.D. Vance managed to push the bill forward.
Democrats, the minority in both the House and Senate, have been unable to do anything but sit by and watch as Trump claims victory after victory. These include progress in his attempt to end birthright citizenship, the claimed destruction of significant Iranian nuclear sites (yet to be independently verified) and the convincing of Nato member states to increase defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Trump may even be getting closer to a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.
And now the Democrats have failed in their desperate attempts to stop this bill. In the Senate, it was felt that there could be enough Republican senators concerned about cuts to Medicaid (the US system that provides essential healthcare to those on low incomes), the closure or reduction of services at rural hospitals, and the increase in national debt to potentially hinder the bill’s progress. However, Democrats were unable to do anything apart from delaying the voting process, and the bill is progressing with some changes but not enough to be severely weakened.
It had seemed likely that the Democrats could work with the Maga-focused Freedom Caucus group of representatives, whose members include Marjorie Taylor Greene, in the early stages in the House to stop its initial passage. But Speaker Mike Johnson managed to calm most of their fears about the rise in the deficit to get the bill through the House.
The lack of effective opposition from the Democrats reflects their congressional standing. The Republicans control the Senate 53-47, and they also have a majority of 220-212 in the House, with three vacancies.
While Democrat numbers in Congress is the primary issue in opposing this bill, their future congressional power will rely on strong leadership within the party and, more importantly, a clear set of policies with appeal that can attract more support at the ballot boxes. Failure to address this will probably allow Republicans to dominate Congress and shape American domestic and foreign policy any way they wish for longer.
Trump’s agenda has now passed the Senate.
What could Democrats do differently?
While Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has been a diligent minority leader in the House, he has attempted to operate as an obstacle to Republican policies with little success, rather than reaching across the political divide to create a consensus with dissenting Republicans.
Outside of Congress, California governor Gavin Newsom, widely touted as a potential candidate for the next presidential election, has offered some resistance to the Trump administration, particularly over Trump’s assumption of national command over the state-controlled National Guard to deal with protests in California against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. However, Newsom’s reputation is still relatively regional, although it is on the rise.
Zohran Mamdani has won the Democratic nomination for New York mayor.
There will be jostling over the next couple of years for the Democratic presidential nomination, and this will have an impact on the platform that the party runs on. Party members and those voting for the next presidential nominee will need to decide whether to continue with the mainly centrist position that the party has adopted since the 1990s or adopt something more left-wing.
A more radical candidate, such as New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, might offer a substantially different proposal that could seem attractive to Democratic voters and those Trump supporters who may feel dissatisfied with the current Republican administration.
However, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, recently selected as the Democratic nominee for the New York mayoral election, has already been vilified by some in the Republican party.
Concerns about such a supposedly “radical” candidate may concern many voters in red states in middle America. However, getting elected is one thing but implementing progressive, left-leaning policies is another thing entirely. They also need to deliver solutions to major issues, such as crime, at all levels, to show their abilities to solve problems.
It is not just the policies that matter for the Democrats, but who they want to represent. Last year’s election suggested that the Democrats had been ousted as the representatives of the working class. Some significant labour unions, a foundation of Democratic support for the majority of the 20th century, failed to endorse Kamala Harris.
Mamdani’s success in New York stemmed from the mobilisation of a grassroots campaign that used social media effectively. It targeted young working-class voters disenchanted with the Democratic party. He also resonated with voters in areas that had seen an increase in Republican voters in the 2024 election.
All this may offer some lessons to the Democrats. They need to reassess their policies, their image and their tactics, and show Americans that they can solve the problems that the public sees as most important, including the high cost of living. While they can expect to gain seats in the House in next year’s midterms, they need to look for a leader and policies that will capture the public’s hearts.
Dafydd Townley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Delia Ramirez – Illinois (3rd District)
As Republicans expand funding for DHS’s unlawful actions, Congresswoman Ramirez demands answers from Secretary Noem on ICE’s overspending and misuse of taxpayers’ dollars
Washington, D.C. –Today, ahead of the House vote on the Republican One Big Ugly Bill, Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03)rallied Members of Congress and advocatesto oppose the GOP’s extreme reconciliation bill, the biggest transfer of wealth and betrayal of working families in recent American history. The bill represents devastating cuts to the programs and services working families rely on while expanding Trump and Noem’s resources for their mass detention, disappearance, and deportation agenda.
“It is important for people to know what is in this bill. Do you know who continues to be left out and betrayed? Working people. People of Color. Immigrants. Women. People with disabilities. The exact people who’ve had to fight and demand every freedom, every liberty this country has denied them. The Big Ugly Bill is just different packaging on the same old imperialist, segregationist policies our communities know so well,” said Congresswoman Ramirez.“And that is why I am here with a number of members of Congress who are ready to fight like HELL for you–not for billionaire bosses, not for Donald Trump, not for Secretary Noem.”
Ramirez was joined by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), CHC Chair Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Judy Chu (CA-28), Becca Balint (VT-AL), Maxine Dexter, M.D. (OR-03), Lou Correa (CA-46), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), and Hank Johnson (GA-04). They were also joined by Izzy Volpe from United We Dream, Senior Policy Analyst Wendy Cervantes from the Center for Law and Social Policy, and Human Rights First President Uzra Zeya.
Despite reports of Trump and Noem’s uncontrolled spending on an anti-migrant operation, the Republican legislation, if passed and signed into law, would infuse over $150 billion into the Department of Homeland Security. The budget would expand detention centers, militarize immigration enforcement, strip legal rights of immigrants– including children–, and further erode legal protections and pathways. At the same time, the bill cuts funding for health care and nutrition programs, and strips tax credits from children—including U.S. citizens—simply because their parents are immigrants.
As part of her effort, Congresswoman Ramirez led 51 members in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pattern of overspending. In May 2025, Secretary Kristi Noem admitted to spending far beyond appropriated levels. With the legislation providing more funding for mass detention, Members of Congress are demanding clarity on how the agency has been using its funding, who is receiving contracts, and how ICE is funding the contracts when it is exceeding its appropriated budget.
“This spending spree has been as inhumane as it has been costly to taxpayers, including approximately $259 million already awarded to enrich private prison corporations to jail families since the start of the Trump administration,” wrote the Members.“The Administration’s move to secure massive profits for its donors and corporate bosses through mass deportations and detention is an ineffective, wasteful, and negligent enterprise.”
“Given recent reports of troubling trends and worsening conditions in detention facilities, DHS and ICE must prioritize their responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer funds are not misused to contravene individual liberty, fairness, and equality guaranteed under U.S. law or to benefit entities that facilitate such acts,” the Member added.
The letter was signed by LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Robert J. Menendez (NJ-08), Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Danny K. Davis (IL-07, Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12), Paul D. Tonko (NY-20), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), André Carson (IN-07), Janelle S. Bynum (OR-05), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Troy A. Carter, Sr. (LA-02), Lou Correa (CA-46), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Gabe Vasquez (NM-02), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Darren Soto (FL-09), Greg Casar (TX-35), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Dina Titus (NV-01), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Nikema Williams (GA-05), Adam Smith (WA-09), Robin L. Kelly (IL-02), Val Hoyle (OR-04), and Summer L. Lee (PA-12).
Click here for the full text of the letter.
Click here for a recording of the press conference.
Ice loss in Antarctica and its impact on the planet – sea level rise, changes to ocean currents and disturbance of wildlife and food webs – has been in the news a lot lately. All of these threats were likely on the minds of the delegates to the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which finishes up today in Milan, Italy.
This meeting is where decisions are made about the continent’s future. These decisions rely on evidence from scientific research. Moreover, only countries that produce significant Antarctic research – as well as being parties to the treaty – get to have a final say in these decisions.
Our new report – published as a preprint through the University of the Arctic – shows the rate of research on the Antarctic and Southern Ocean is falling at exactly the time when it should be increasing. Moreover, research leadership is changing, with China taking the lead for the first time.
This points to a dangerous disinvestment in Antarctic research just when it is needed, alongside a changing of the guard in national influence. Antarctica and the research done there are key to everyone’s future, so it’s vital to understand what this change might lead to.
Why is Antarctic research so important?
With the Antarctic region rapidly warming, its ice shelves destabilising and sea ice shrinking, understanding the South Polar environment is more crucial than ever.
Research to understand these impacts is vital. First, knowing the impact of our actions – particularly carbon emissions – gives us an increased drive to make changes and lobby governments to do so.
Second, even when changes are already locked in, to prepare ourselves we need to know what these changes will look like.
And third, we need to understand the threats to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean environment to govern it properly. This is where the treaty comes in.
Fifty-eight countries are parties to the treaty, but only 29 of them – called consultative parties – can make binding decisions about the region. They comprise the 12 original signatories from 1959, along with 17 more recent signatory nations that produce substantial scientific research relating to Antarctica.
This makes research a key part of a nation’s influence over what happens in Antarctica.
For most of its history, the Antarctic Treaty System has functioned remarkably well. It maintained peace in the region during the Cold War, facilitated scientific cooperation, and put arguments about territorial claims on indefinite hold. It indefinitely forbade mining, and managed fisheries.
Because decisions are made by consensus, any country can effectively block progress. Russia and China – both long-term actors in the system – have been at the centre of the impasse.
Tracking the amount of Antarctic research being done tells us whether nations as a whole are investing enough in understanding the region and its global impact.
It also tells us which nations are investing the most and are therefore likely to have substantial influence.
Our new report examined the number of papers published on Antarctic and Southern Ocean topics from 2016 to 2024, using the Scopus database. We also looked at other factors, such as the countries affiliated with each paper.
The results show five significant changes are happening in the world of Antarctic research.
The number of Antarctic and Southern Ocean publications peaked in 2021 and then fell slightly yearly through to 2024.
While the United States has for decades been the leader in Antarctic research, China overtook them in 2022.
If we look only at the high-quality publications (those published in the best 25% of journals) China still took over the US, in 2024.
Of the top six countries in overall publications (China, the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Russia) all except China have declined in publication numbers since 2016.
Although collaboration in publications is higher for Antarctic research than in non-Antarctic fields, Russia, India and China have anomalously low rates of co-authorship compared with many other signatory countries.
Why is this research decline a problem?
A recent parliamentary inquiry in Australia emphasised the need for funding certainty. In the UK, a House of Commons committee report considered it “imperative for the UK to significantly expand its research efforts in Antarctica”, in particular in relation to sea level rise.
US commentators have pointed to the inadequacy of the country’s icebreaker infrastructure. The Trump administration’s recent cuts to Antarctic funding are only likely to exacerbate the situation. Meanwhile China has built a fifth station in Antarctica and announced plans for a sixth.
Given the nation’s population and global influence, China’s leadership in Antarctic research is not surprising. If China were to take a lead in Antarctic environmental protection that matched its scientific heft, its move to lead position in the research ranks could be positive. Stronger multi-country collaboration in research could also strengthen overall cooperation.
But the overall drop in global Antarctic research investment is a problem however you look at it. We ignore it at our peril.
Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, the Council on Australian and Latin American Relations DFAT and HX (Hurtigruten Expeditions). She has received in-kind support from Hurtigruten Expeditions in the recent past. The University of Tasmania is a member of the UArctic, which has provided support for this project.
Keith Larson is affiliated with the UArctic and European Polar Board. The UArctic paid for the development and publication of this report. The UArctic Thematic Network on Research Analytics and Bibliometrics conducted the analysis and developed the report. The Arctic Centre at Umeå University provided in-kind support for staff time on the report.
About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.
The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.
Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.
On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.
How hurricanes form. NOAA
I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.
Looking inside the clouds
At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.
These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.
Hurricane Flossie spins off the Mexican coast on July 1, 2025. Images show the top of the hurricane from space as day turns to night. NOAA GOES
Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.
But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.
Infrared bands show more detail of Hurricane Flossie’s structure on July 1, 2025. NOAA GOES
For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.
The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.
Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.
About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.
Where are the defense satellites going?
NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”
The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.
The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.
The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.
Images of Hurricane Erick off the coast of Mexico, viewed from NOAA-20’s ATMS (left) and DMPS SSMIS (right) on June 18 show the difference in resolution and the higher detail provided by the SSMIS data. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, via Michael Lowry
ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.
Why are satellite replacements last minute?
Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.
Scientists prepare a GOES-R satellite for packing aboard a rocket in 2016. NASA/Charles Babir
Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.
The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.
Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.
Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.
Based on pronouncements in 2024, you might think now is the time to see U.S. citizens streamingout of the country. Months before the 2024 presidential election, Americans were saying they would leave should candidate Donald Trump win the election. Gallup polling in 2024 found that 21% of Americans wanted to leave the United States permanently, more than double the 10% who had said so in 2011.
And indeed in June 2025, a Vermont legislator announced that she was resigning her seat and moving to Canada because of political concerns and economic opportunities. To be sure, people are moving. Even so, as a scholar of American migration overseas, my research finds that the vast majority of Americans are not about to depart for greener shores.
A western Massachusetts group
In October 2024, I surveyed 68 Americans in western Massachusetts, an area with a slight Democratic majority, asking if they wanted to leave the United States for a lengthy period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Over 90% said no, noting that there were factors limiting their mobility, such as financial obligations or having a partner who would not move, and that there were reasons that made them want to stay, such as owning property and having friends nearby.
Just three respondents indicated they were making plans to move, while an additional 11 said they wanted to move “someday.”
Reality strikes
After the November 2024 election, I interviewed seven of those respondents, two of whom had said prior to the election that they might leave the United States. After the election, they all said they planned to stay.
One who had said she wanted to leave acknowledged her reversal, saying: “I may have flippantly said, ‘Oh, if (Trump) gets voted in … I would leave,’ but I can’t see leaving. Part of it is because of my daughter,” who had recently become a mother. She continued, “It’s never crossed my mind seriously enough to even research it.”
Another told me, “I’m not going to let somebody push me out of what I consider my country and my home because he’s a jerk.”
Others spoke of needing to work several more years in order to receive a pension, or having family responsibilities keeping them in the country. None supported the current administration.
On a national level
In two nationally representative surveys, my colleague Helen B. Marrow, a sociologist of immigration, and I found no significant increase in migration aspiration between 2014 and 2019. We also found that respondents mentioned exploration and adventure much more often than political or economic reasons for wanting to move abroad.
Even though the U.S. passport grants visa-free visitor access to more than 180 countries, U.S. citizens still need residence and work visas. At home, they, like others, have family commitments and financial constraints, or may just not want to leave home. More than 95% of the world’s population do not move abroad – and U.S. citizens are no different.
Relocation coaching
In addition to my academic research on overseas Americans, I am also an international relocation coach. I help Americans considering a move abroad navigate the emotional, practical and professional complexities of relocation, whether they’re just starting to explore the idea or actively planning their next steps.
In February 2025, a national poll found that 4% of Americans said they were “definitely planning to move” to another country.
That same month, I followed up with my seven interviewees from western Massachusetts, including one trans man. They all reiterated their choice to remain in the United States. One person, who might move abroad at some point, told me she hadn’t changed her mind about leaving soon: “Leaving doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be better for me, even if it was a financial possibility.”
Two people said that recent political developments actually meant that they were more committed to remaining in the United States. One told me, “Now, more than ever, individuals need to figure out what small actions can be taken to help our fellow Americans get through this dark period.”
But even those “definitely planning on moving” can have other factors intervene. Two clients of mine who were making serious plans had to stop when family members’ health situations changed for the worse.
So how many people are actually leaving? It is clear that a growing number of Americans are considering a move abroad. But far fewer are conducting serious research, seeking professional consultation or actually moving. Drawing on available data, my own academic research and my coaching experience, my educated estimate is that no more than 1% to 2% of U.S. citizens are actively making viable plans to leave the country. Nor are all of those leaving out of protest; many are still motivated by exploration, adventure, employment or to be with a partner.
Even so, that figure is roughly 3 million to 6 million people – which would be a significant increase over the estimated 5.5 million Americans currently living abroad. As with many migration flows, even the movement of a small percentage of a population can still have the potential to reshape both the United States and its overseas population.
Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, .AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”
Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.
Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.
Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.
How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.
Tools of the trade
The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.
More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.
Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.
The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.
Pervasive uncertainty
But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.
Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.
Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.
News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.
Politicized intelligence
In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.
But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”
Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”
The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.
This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.
What lies ahead
What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.
Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.
Based on pronouncements in 2024, you might think now is the time to see U.S. citizens streamingout of the country. Months before the 2024 presidential election, Americans were saying they would leave should candidate Donald Trump win the election. Gallup polling in 2024 found that 21% of Americans wanted to leave the United States permanently, more than double the 10% who had said so in 2011.
And indeed in June 2025, a Vermont legislator announced that she was resigning her seat and moving to Canada because of political concerns and economic opportunities. To be sure, people are moving. Even so, as a scholar of American migration overseas, my research finds that the vast majority of Americans are not about to depart for greener shores.
A western Massachusetts group
In October 2024, I surveyed 68 Americans in western Massachusetts, an area with a slight Democratic majority, asking if they wanted to leave the United States for a lengthy period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Over 90% said no, noting that there were factors limiting their mobility, such as financial obligations or having a partner who would not move, and that there were reasons that made them want to stay, such as owning property and having friends nearby.
Just three respondents indicated they were making plans to move, while an additional 11 said they wanted to move “someday.”
Reality strikes
After the November 2024 election, I interviewed seven of those respondents, two of whom had said prior to the election that they might leave the United States. After the election, they all said they planned to stay.
One who had said she wanted to leave acknowledged her reversal, saying: “I may have flippantly said, ‘Oh, if (Trump) gets voted in … I would leave,’ but I can’t see leaving. Part of it is because of my daughter,” who had recently become a mother. She continued, “It’s never crossed my mind seriously enough to even research it.”
Another told me, “I’m not going to let somebody push me out of what I consider my country and my home because he’s a jerk.”
Others spoke of needing to work several more years in order to receive a pension, or having family responsibilities keeping them in the country. None supported the current administration.
On a national level
In two nationally representative surveys, my colleague Helen B. Marrow, a sociologist of immigration, and I found no significant increase in migration aspiration between 2014 and 2019. We also found that respondents mentioned exploration and adventure much more often than political or economic reasons for wanting to move abroad.
Even though the U.S. passport grants visa-free visitor access to more than 180 countries, U.S. citizens still need residence and work visas. At home, they, like others, have family commitments and financial constraints, or may just not want to leave home. More than 95% of the world’s population do not move abroad – and U.S. citizens are no different.
Relocation coaching
In addition to my academic research on overseas Americans, I am also an international relocation coach. I help Americans considering a move abroad navigate the emotional, practical and professional complexities of relocation, whether they’re just starting to explore the idea or actively planning their next steps.
In February 2025, a national poll found that 4% of Americans said they were “definitely planning to move” to another country.
That same month, I followed up with my seven interviewees from western Massachusetts, including one trans man. They all reiterated their choice to remain in the United States. One person, who might move abroad at some point, told me she hadn’t changed her mind about leaving soon: “Leaving doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be better for me, even if it was a financial possibility.”
Two people said that recent political developments actually meant that they were more committed to remaining in the United States. One told me, “Now, more than ever, individuals need to figure out what small actions can be taken to help our fellow Americans get through this dark period.”
But even those “definitely planning on moving” can have other factors intervene. Two clients of mine who were making serious plans had to stop when family members’ health situations changed for the worse.
So how many people are actually leaving? It is clear that a growing number of Americans are considering a move abroad. But far fewer are conducting serious research, seeking professional consultation or actually moving. Drawing on available data, my own academic research and my coaching experience, my educated estimate is that no more than 1% to 2% of U.S. citizens are actively making viable plans to leave the country. Nor are all of those leaving out of protest; many are still motivated by exploration, adventure, employment or to be with a partner.
Even so, that figure is roughly 3 million to 6 million people – which would be a significant increase over the estimated 5.5 million Americans currently living abroad. As with many migration flows, even the movement of a small percentage of a population can still have the potential to reshape both the United States and its overseas population.
Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, .AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”
Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.
Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.
Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.
How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.
Tools of the trade
The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.
More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.
Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.
The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.
Pervasive uncertainty
But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.
Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.
Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.
News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.
Politicized intelligence
In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.
But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”
Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”
The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.
This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.
What lies ahead
What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.
Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.
China’s embassy in Fiji denied on Thursday that Beijing wanted a military base or sphere of influence in the Pacific Islands, after Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said islands were trying to cope with a powerful China seeking to spread its influence.
“The claims about China setting up a military base in the Pacific are false narratives,” an embassy spokesperson said in a statement.
“China’s presence in the Pacific is focused on building roads and bridges to improve people’s livelihoods, not on stationing troops or setting up military bases.”
Rabuka said on Wednesday his country had development cooperation with China, but was opposed to Beijing establishing a military base in the region. In any case, China did not need a base to project power in the region, he added.
China tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in September that flew over Fiji to land 11,000 km (6,800 miles) from China in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean.
“If they can very well target an empty space they can very well target occupied space,” Rabuka told the National Press Club in Canberra.
Washington became concerned about China’s ambition to gain a military foothold in the Pacific Islands in 2018 when Beijing sought to redevelop a naval base in Papua New Guinea and a military base in Fiji. China was outbid by Australia for both projects.
The concern resurfaced in 2022 when China signed a security pact with Solomon Islands, prompting Washington to warn it would respond if Beijing established a permanent military presence.
In November, the outgoing U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the Trump administration to keep its focus on the region because China wanted to build bases in the Pacific Islands.
The Chinese embassy spokesperson said Fiji and China respect each other’s sovereignty.
“China has no interest in geopolitical competition, or seeking the so-called ‘sphere of influence’,” the statement added.
China has established a police presence in Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu.
