A Framework for Peace in Ukraine

This proposed settlement – designed to help end a conflict that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation – addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms.

by Jeffrey D. Sachs | Oct 22, 2026 | 

The war in Ukraine can be ended permanently on terms that protect Ukraine’s statehood, meet Russia’s security concerns, and lay the foundation for a durable European security order. As another round of negotiations gears up in Norway, I propose a settlement concluded as a single package, signed by Ukraine and Russia, adopted by a vote of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and guaranteed jointly by the five permanent members of the Council together with other states that choose to join. The proposal rests on the principle of indivisible security set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris.

The package would have four core commitments.

The first is Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, adopted in a constitutional law on the model of Austria’s law of 1955, which would return Ukraine to the founding choice of its Declaration of State Sovereignty of 1990. Ukraine would join no military alliance and host no foreign bases or forces, whether of NATO, the European Union, their member states, or Russia. Neutrality would not mean disarmament, and Ukraine would retain armed forces for its own defense.

The second is that Ukraine would pursue its candidacy for membership in the European Union as a permanently neutral state, with a neutrality protocol in its accession treaty on the model of Ireland’s, and Russia would affirm that Ukraine’s membership in the EU is consistent with Russia’s security.

The third is an armistice line drawn along the line of contact on the date of signature. Each side would exercise de facto jurisdiction on its side of the line, neither would recognize the other’s territorial claims, and both would renounce force in any future adjustment. This formula is compatible with both countries’ constitutions, which bar or severely restrict the cession of territory.

The fourth is the end of NATO enlargement eastward. At signature the North Atlantic Council would declare that NATO will not admit Ukraine or other new members in Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus, withdrawing the Bucharest pledge of 2008.

The settlement would take effect as a permanent end of hostilities on signature, not as a temporary ceasefire, and its provisions would be implemented in stages under international verification. No element would be negotiated in isolation, and no party would be asked to make a concession in advance of signature.

The territorial arrangements are designed to address the concerns and claims of both sides. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from the part of Donetsk region that Ukraine now controls, which would become a demilitarized special zone. Russian forces would not enter it, the existing local civil administration would continue to function, and its final status would be left to negotiation. Russia would withdraw from the areas it holds in Dnipropetrovsk region and from the Kinburn Spit. A Northern Security Zone would be demilitarized on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border, and Russian forces would leave the areas they hold in Kharkiv and Sumy regions as Ukrainian forces withdraw from their side. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would remain under Russian control with IAEA safety oversight and would sell an agreed share of its electricity to Ukraine at cost.

A demilitarized belt would run along both sides of the armistice line, with heavy weapons and long-range strike systems withdrawn to agreed distances, and mutual ceilings on forces would apply in the border regions on both sides. In the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, commercial navigation would be free for all Ukrainian and Russian ports, and attacks on shipping and ports would be prohibited.

The settlement in Ukraine should also begin the repair of European security as a whole. NATO and Russia would agree on a moratorium on ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in Europe, refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any additional state, and restore the NATO-Russia Council. Normal diplomatic relations would be restored on both sides. The parties would convene the first summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe since 2010 to entrust the OSCE with monitoring the settlement, verifying arms limits, and overseeing the provisions on rights.

Questions of language, education, culture, and religion would be resolved according to European standards, with the Russian language treated on the same basis as Ukraine’s other minority languages, and Russia would accept the same obligations toward Ukrainian speakers and religious communities on its side of the line. All obligations concerning extremism and incitement would be mutual and monitored by the OSCE. Prisoners of war would be exchanged on an all-for-all basis, detained civilians released, and separated children reunited with their families.

Sanctions would be lifted during 2027. Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets would also be released, and private property seized or immobilized on both sides would be restored. An international reconstruction fund administered by the European Investment Bank would finance reconstruction on both sides of the line, with contributions from all parties, Russia included, in a common effort rather than as reparations. Gas transit through Ukraine could resume wherever there are willing buyers, without any commitment by the European Union to purchase Russian gas.

A report of serious violation by an OSCE monitoring mission of unarmed observers from states outside NATO would trigger consultations among the guarantors and referral to the Security Council. Ukraine would lift martial law and hold elections under OSCE observation, and the newly elected Verkhovna Rada would ratify the settlement and adopt the constitutional law on neutrality, while the Russian Federal Assembly would ratify it at the same stage.

This proposed settlement addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms. Europe has been largely absent from the design of the peace. By putting forward such a framework, European governments can take the lead in building Europe’s indivisible security and help end a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation between nuclear powers.

Reprinted from Common Dreams.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2020). Other books include: Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable (2017), and The Age of Sustainable Development, (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

 

EU eyes Arctic cable linking Greenland to Europe amid growing security threats

Copyright Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Greenland's government leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen visit Greenland, 6 September 2026.

By Marta Pacheco & Luca Bertuzzi

Published on 19/10/2026 - EURONEWS

Brussels wants to secure digital infrastructure in the Arctic as melting ice and growing geopolitical tensions turn the polar region into a strategic corridor for trade, communications and security.

The European Union is planning a secure submarine cable linking Greenland directly to Europe, with ambitions to extend the network through Canada to Japan and South Korea, according to a draft Arctic strategy seen by Euronews.

The project is part of a broader effort to strengthen Europe's digital infrastructure and security in the increasingly contested Arctic region.

"The EU is working on a Pan-Arctic Cable concept that will connect Europe to Japan and South Korea via Greenland and Canada. In the coming years, the EU will connect Greenland to the European Union with a sovereign and secure submarine cable," the document reads.

The plans, outlined in the EU's new Arctic strategy, due to be unveiled on 20 October, reflect growing concerns in Brussels that undersea telecommunications cables have become a matter of strategic security rather than simply commercial infrastructure.

The initiative comes amid a deteriorating security environment in the Arctic, where Russia has expanded its military presence and European governments are increasingly concerned about hybrid threats, including interference with satellite navigation and sabotage of undersea infrastructure.

Related

Meanwhile, growing US interest in Greenland ,has added another layer of geopolitical tension to the region, underlining Europe's concerns about its dependence on infrastructure controlled by others.

The North Atlantic has roughly 17 submarine telecommunications cables, with US technology giants playing a dominant role in the wider infrastructure network.

Submarine cables carry the vast majority of international data traffic, underpinning everything from everyday communications to financial transactions. Their vulnerability to accidental damage or deliberate sabotage has become a major concern for European governments.

For Brussels, improving Arctic connectivity goes beyond bringing faster internet to remote communities. The EU is looking to create more resilient routes for data and reduce exposure to infrastructure that could be disrupted during a geopolitical crisis.

Relate

Greenland occupies a particularly sensitive position. Situated between Europe and North America, the autonomous Danish territory has become increasingly important to transatlantic security as competition intensifies over Arctic resources, shipping routes and military access.

A more direct digital connection with Europe could strengthen the territory’s links to the EU while giving Brussels a greater stake in the infrastructure underpinning the region’s future.

"The new submarine cable routes will enhance the access of Arctic communities as well as boost resilience and redundancy in Europe’s digital connectivity. Such connection is a pre-condition for further investments highly relevant for both competitiveness, inclusion, preparedness and defence," reads the document.

The proposed extension towards Asia through Canada would add a broader strategic dimension. Rather than treating Greenland as an isolated connectivity challenge, the EU is considering how Arctic infrastructure might form part of a wider network linking European and Asian economies.

Whether that vision becomes a viable project will depend on technical feasibility, commercial demand, financing and cooperation with Canada and other partners.

Who will pay?

The EU has already earmarked €107 million for connectivity projects involving Greenland, meaning the proposed cable would build on existing commitments rather than represent an entirely new area of investment.

The Commission had presented the idea of co-financing Far North Fibre, a route planning a subsea cable in the Arctic area, to EU member-state representatives. The project was estimated to cost around $1.15 billion, but the project received around €11 million.

The potentially significant development is the prospect of a wider strategic connection between Greenland, Europe and, through Canada, Asian partners.

Such a network would raise difficult questions about who pays for construction, who owns and operates the cables, how they would be protected and whether the route would be commercially viable.

Any extension towards Japan and South Korea would also require agreement and coordination with partners beyond the EU.

However, the strategy does not settle those questions. Nor does it establish a final route, budget or construction schedule for the proposed network.

Still, it mentions creating an Arctic Cable Hub for EU countries, Norway and Iceland, to monitor, protect, and support the repair of submarine cables in the North Atlantic-Arctic. The hub will likely require support from an enhanced icebreaker fleet.

Expanding the icebreaker fleet

The EU's Arctic ambitions extend beyond digital infrastructure to the ships needed to operate in the region's increasingly contested waters.

At the Arctic Summit in September, the EU's special envoy for the region, former Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen, warned of a critical shortfall in European icebreaker capabilities.

“This is not just an issue for Finland, for Norway, for Sweden. This is something for the entire European Union, for the entire European continent. And that's the reason why we are talking about that. And you have my support on that to do that jointly,” German Chancellor Friederik Merz said at the summit’s press conference.

Related

Indeed, the strategy goes in this direction, and vows to put in place an EU Industrial Maritime Value Chains Alliance meant to map icebreaking needs, available manufacturing capacity in Europe and the technical specifications required.

“The EU, together with member states and like-minded partners, will develop options for joint procurement, pooling and sharing icebreaker capabilities and other capabilities relevant for the Arctic,” reads the strategy.

The intent is to pool together funding and technological resources with Nordic countries and examine whether it is possible to facilitate the operational viability of nationally owned assets, while respecting the national command structure.

The strategy explicitly mentions “assets with special focus on icebreakers for extreme high North environments utilising advanced, high-endurance propulsion systems, including nuclear.”

Britain’s New Arctic Policy: Between Security, Strategic Competition and the Search for Cooperation – OpEd

October 18, 2026

By K.M. Seethi


Key Takeaways:

Britain’s Arctic policy has moved from scientific cooperation and environmental protection towards greater emphasis on security, reflecting the Ukraine war, Greenland developments and growing geopolitical tensions.

 
Russia’s military presence, China’s Arctic ambitions and the emerging Northern Sea Route have intensified strategic competition. Britain’s NATO-first approach strengthens Western military preparedness while raising concerns about further militarisation.

 
Climate change, resource competition and expanding shipping opportunities are transforming the Arctic. The critical challenge is preventing geopolitical rivalry from undermining international cooperation, environmental protection and the interests of Indigenous communities.

The Arctic has already emerged as one of the geopolitically contested regions in the world. Climate change, expanding military activities, competition over natural resources and the opening of new maritime routes have significantly changed a region once associated primarily with scientific exploration and environmental cooperation. For Britain, these developments have acquired greater urgency. The United Kingdom’s October 2026 policy document, The UK and the Arctic: An Update to the United Kingdom’s Arctic Policy Framework, indicates a changing assessment of the region’s geopolitical and economic significance. It also underlines how the Arctic has become part of the wider confrontation between Russia and the Western alliance, with China emerging as another important participant.

Introducing the policy framework, Uma Kumaran, Britain’s Minister for the Polar Regions, observes:

…we must also be clear-eyed about a more contested geopolitical context. While our ambition is for a more secure and co-operative Arctic, the challenges to that vision continue to intensify. The region today is far removed from the ‘zone of peace’ envisaged at the end of the Cold War, and the conditions that enabled close co-operation, including through the Arctic Council, have been significantly undermined.


She continues:

Russia’s sustained militarisation of the Arctic over nearly two decades, compounded by its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has disrupted established patterns of cooperation and increased risks to regional stability. At the same time, wider strategic competition, including China’s stated ambition to become a Polar great power by 2030, is shaping the region in new ways. Greater accessibility is opening economic opportunities, from shipping to resource development, but also increasing pressure on environmental and social systems.

These observations point to the major dilemma confronting British Arctic policy. The government seeks to preserve international cooperation and environmental protection while preparing for an increasingly militarised regional order. Its latest framework attempts to reconcile these objectives, although the growing emphasis on NATO raises questions about whether military competition will eventually overshadow the Arctic’s environmental and developmental priorities.

From Arctic Cooperation to Strategic Competition

Britain’s Arctic policy has evolved considerably over the past decade. Its 2013 framework, Adapting to Change, approached the region primarily through scientific cooperation, environmental protection and responsible economic engagement. The 2018 policy document, Beyond the Ice, continued this approach while acknowledging the growing economic significance of Arctic resources and shipping.

The February 2023 framework, Looking North, indicated a more pronounced concern with regional security. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 had already disrupted diplomatic cooperation and raised questions about the future of Arctic governance. Nevertheless, Britain continued to emphasise scientific partnerships, environmental responsibilities and international institutions.

The October 2026 update marks a further change. It explicitly declares that the era of Arctic exceptionalism, commonly associated with the expression High North, low tension, has ended. The Arctic is now treated as an essential component of Britain’s national security and NATO’s collective defence.

This change has several explanations. Russia’s military infrastructure in the Arctic has expanded over many years. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, substantially altering the strategic geography of northern Europe. China’s economic and scientific engagement has increased. Meanwhile, climate change is making previously inaccessible areas more open to navigation, resource extraction and military operations.


The British response brings out these developments. However, the assumption that greater military preparedness will necessarily produce regional stability deserves closer examination. An expanding NATO presence may strengthen deterrence, but it could also encourage Russia to reinforce its military capabilities, creating a cycle of mutual suspicion.

Russia, Ukraine and the Expansion of NATO

The Ukraine war has profoundly affected Britain’s assessment of Arctic security. Russia’s Northern Fleet, based on the Kola Peninsula, remains central to its naval and nuclear deterrence capabilities. Moscow has modernised military installations, strengthened surveillance systems and expanded its ability to operate across the Barents Sea and North Atlantic.


The British framework identifies Russian submarine activities, threats to undersea infrastructure and the growing use of sanctions-evading vessels as major security concerns. It specifically refers to Russia’s Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research, whose capabilities have raised Western concerns about the vulnerability of submarine cables and pipelines. Britain’s response is increasingly organised around NATO. Its 2025 Strategic Defence Review established a NATO-First approach, which the new Arctic framework incorporates into regional policy.

Britain plans to double the number of troops undertaking cold-weather training in Norway from 1,000 to 2,000 by 2029. It is expanding maritime surveillance across the Greenland–Iceland–UK Gap, strengthening cooperation with Iceland and Canada, and developing advanced naval capabilities under the Atlantic Bastion programme. This programme combines maritime patrol aircraft, frigates, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence to improve the detection and monitoring of potential threats. In September 2026, Britain assumed command of NATO’s Joint Force Command Norfolk, which has responsibilities across the North Atlantic and Arctic. The UK also intends to coordinate more closely with NATO’s Arctic Sentry initiative through the ten-country Joint Expeditionary Force.

The accession of Finland and Sweden has strengthened NATO’s geographical position. Seven of the eight Arctic states are now NATO members, leaving Russia as the only Arctic state outside the alliance. This transformation has major implications. From NATO’s perspective, the enlargement strengthens collective security. From Moscow’s perspective, the expansion brings the Western military alliance closer to strategically sensitive Russian territories. Britain’s framework recognises the danger of escalation and repeatedly states that it does not seek unnecessary militarisation. However, its operational commitments indicate that defence and deterrence are becoming increasingly prominent in British Arctic policy.

Greenland, Trump and the Changing Atlantic Relationship

Greenland has acquired renewed importance in Arctic geopolitics, particularly following President Donald Trump’s efforts to strengthen American strategic influence over the territory. The September 2026 agreement involving the United States, Denmark and Greenland is an important development in this context. The agreement addresses American security interests while recognising the constitutional and political position of Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark. Britain’s new Arctic framework welcomes the agreement, describing it as a contribution to Arctic and North Atlantic security. It also explicitly supports Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and Greenland’s right to self-determination. This position underlines Britain’s attempt to maintain two important relationships: its longstanding strategic partnership with Washington and its commitment to European allies, particularly Denmark.

Trump’s approach to Greenland has nevertheless exposed tensions within the Western alliance. American interest in Greenland is driven by its strategic location, military facilities, critical minerals and growing significance in Arctic navigation. For Denmark and Greenland, questions of sovereignty, political autonomy and control over natural resources remain fundamental. Britain’s response has been relatively cautious. Rather than directly challenging Washington’s expanding Arctic ambitions, London has welcomed the negotiated arrangement while seeking stronger bilateral relations with Greenland.

The UK resumed negotiations on a Partnership, Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Greenland in October 2025. It is also expanding scientific collaboration, including research into climate tipping points. The larger question is whether Greenland will increasingly become an arena of strategic competition among major powers. Britain’s position suggests that it recognises this possibility while seeking to protect its diplomatic and economic interests.

China, Russia and the Northern Sea Route

China’s expanding Arctic presence has been another major concern for Britain. Beijing describes itself as a near-Arctic state and has developed scientific, commercial and technological partnerships across the region. Its cooperation with Russia has become particularly important following the deterioration of Moscow’s relations with Western countries. The Northern Sea Route, running along Russia’s Arctic coastline, is central to this emerging partnership. It offers a potentially shorter maritime connection between East Asia and northern Europe.


In October 2026, Russian and Chinese officials discussed proposals to integrate China’s Maritime Silk Road with Russia’s Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor. These included port development, container shipping connections, shipbuilding cooperation and maritime technologies. As Adriel Kasonta argues, such cooperation could gradually create an alternative maritime network less dependent on traditional shipping routes and Western strategic influence. For China, the Northern Sea Route offers an opportunity to diversify maritime connections and reduce dependence on vulnerable chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca and Suez Canal. For Russia, Chinese investment and shipping demand could accelerate the development of Arctic infrastructure.

Britain’s position towards the Northern Sea Route is more complex than outright opposition. The October framework acknowledges the commercial opportunities arising from Arctic shipping. Britain could benefit through its ports, maritime insurance industry, shipping technologies and associated services. London remains an important centre for international maritime insurance and financial services.

However, the report also expresses concern about the environmental and operational risks associated with the route. It notes that sanctioned vessels account for nearly one-third of cargo traffic along the Northern Sea Route, raising concerns about maritime safety, environmental damage and sanctions enforcement. The UK therefore approaches the route as both a potential commercial opportunity and a strategic concern.

There is also a wider geopolitical dimension. Greater Chinese participation could strengthen Russia’s economic resilience and reduce the effectiveness of Western sanctions. At the same time, the development of alternative shipping corridors could weaken the relative importance of established maritime networks. However, the Northern Sea Route faces considerable limitations. Seasonal ice conditions, inadequate infrastructure, insurance costs and environmental risks continue to restrict its commercial viability. Its emergence as a major alternative to the Suez Canal remains uncertain.

Climate Change, Science and Economic Interests

Although security dominates much of the new framework, climate change continues to be fundamental to Britain’s Arctic engagement. The Arctic is warming much faster than the global average. Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, coastal erosion and changing ecosystems are affecting Indigenous communities and regional livelihoods. These developments also have consequences for weather patterns, sea levels and environmental security beyond the Arctic.

Britain has invested substantially in polar research. The framework records more than £145 million in investment by the Natural Environment Research Council in Arctic science since 2014. It also identifies new funding commitments for research cooperation with Norway, Greenland and other partners. Scientific collaboration is increasingly connected with technological development. Satellite communications, artificial intelligence, climate modelling and maritime monitoring are becoming important areas of investment.

The economic dimension is equally significant. Arctic critical minerals are attracting attention because of their importance for clean energy technologies, advanced manufacturing and defence industries. Britain seeks diversified mineral supply chains and stronger commercial partnerships with Arctic states. It also emphasises environmental safeguards, Indigenous participation and responsible resource development.

A contradiction, however, remains. Climate change is creating new economic opportunities precisely because the Arctic environment is deteriorating. Expanding shipping, tourism and mineral extraction could intensify ecological pressures in an already vulnerable region. Britain’s commitment to environmental protection will therefore be tested by its willingness to regulate commercial activities, including those involving its own companies and strategic partners.

Can the Arctic Remain a Region of Cooperation?

The October 2026 framework reflects a fundamental change in Britain’s understanding of the Arctic. What was previously approached mainly as a region of scientific cooperation and environmental responsibility is increasingly being incorporated into the strategic calculations of NATO and the wider Western alliance.

Russia’s military activities, China’s growing economic influence, the Ukraine war and the renewed geopolitical significance of Greenland have accelerated this transition. Nevertheless, the framework retains important commitments to international law, the Arctic Council, scientific cooperation and Indigenous rights. These commitments deserve greater attention because the challenges facing the Arctic cannot be addressed through military preparedness alone. Climate change, marine pollution, environmental degradation and threats to Indigenous livelihoods require sustained international cooperation, including engagement across geopolitical divisions.

The growing confrontation between NATO and Russia, combined with China’s expanding Arctic activities, could further weaken the institutions that have historically supported regional cooperation. The danger is that the Arctic may become another geopolitical terrain of global strategic rivalry at precisely the moment when collective environmental action is most urgently required. Britain’s new policy recognises this dilemma but offers no easy resolution. Its emphasis on deterrence shows genuine security concerns, while its commitment to cooperation points to the continuing need for collective governance.


For Britain and the other Arctic powers, the critical question is whether they can prevent strategic competition from overwhelming the shared responsibility to protect the High North whose future has consequences for the entire world.

 

About K.M. Seethi
K.M. Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala. He also served as ICSSR Senior Fellow, Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU. One of his latest works is "ENDURING DILEMMA Flashpoints in Kashmir and India-Pakistan Relations."
View all posts by K.M. Seethi →

Stop Mad King Donald’s Iran War: An Open Letter to Members of the US Congress

The war with Iran is Trump’s folly but Congress’s disgrace for not stopping it.

Jeffrey D. Sachs
Sep 23, 2026

Common Dreams


Dear Members of Congress,

In truly deranged remarks to world leaders at the UN, Donald Trump declared that “I have a big decision to make,” whether to negotiate a deal with Iran or instead to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and drive Iran “into hell with no chance of survival.”

He posed it as his personal choice. The fact that the American people are dead set against Trump’s war means nothing. And as for the voters, he added that he gives “absolutely no credence” to the coming midterm elections in deciding on his actions and on Iran’s fate.

The President’s threat to annihilate a member state of the United Nations, delivered from the General Assembly podium, disgraced Trump in front of the world.

Nothing binds this President. He is not bound by law, the Constitution, the UN Charter, or public opinion at home and abroad. When asked at the start of the year whether he has any limits on his power, he said “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Trump opened his speech with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, hailing America’s freedom. The fact is that Trump’s authoritarianism far outdoes that of King George III, against whom the colonies rebelled. Among the founders’ indictments of Mad King George was that “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Yet our own mad king has decided that the survival of a whole civilization is in his hands alone.

Trump is emboldened in his contempt for Congress because the Republican members of Congress have abdicated their constitutional responsibilities, terrified of their own president, and forsaking their constituents for campaign lucre from AIPAC and the military-industrial complex.

The Constitution is unambiguous regarding Congress’s responsibility. Article I, Section 8 assigns Congress, not the President, the sole power to declare war. That is not a choice or an option. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can play dead and let the President declare war. The Framers made this choice deliberately, because they were explicitly rejecting the power of a king to take the nation to war.

In Federalist 69, Hamilton assured the public that the President’s war powers would be far less than the British monarch’s. Madison stated the principle plainly in a letter to Jefferson in 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The founders’ careful design has been overturned because of the unconstitutional subservience of the Republican members of Congress to Trump and to the military-industrial-digital complex. And yes, under Democratic presidents, most Democratic members of Congress also looked the other way when those presidents chose to go to war.

The war with Iran is Trump’s folly but Congress’s disgrace for not stopping it. It is a war without a purpose that has created mass suffering in Iran, tens of billions of dollars of direct outlays, and staggering damage to American military bases in eight countries of the Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent world and American prices soaring for oil, gas, fertilizers, and more. And the world has duly noted that Iran can hold its own against US aggression, albeit at great sacrifice to the people of Iran and the region.

America’s much vaunted AI battlefield has been exposed in the most horrifying way. On the first day of the war, an American missile struck the girls’ elementary school there, killing more than 150 people, most of them girls aged seven to twelve, and the military’s own inquiry reportedly found that overreliance on artificial intelligence contributed to the targeting. Trump blamed “Iran or somebody else,” and seven months later the administration has offered no findings, no apology and no compensation to the families.

The President’s threat to annihilate a member state of the United Nations, delivered from the General Assembly podium, disgraced Trump in front of the world. It also violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits even the threat of force against another state. Nearly all the world stands aghast.

I write to you because you cannot simply walk away from Trump’s recklessness, shaking your heads silently. You have a job to do, so do it. The craven Republican Party has to find even a minimal level of guts to tell Trump, “No, you do not have the power to destroy Iran. Any war with Iran depends on us, and we don’t support you and our constituents want this war to stop.” A clear majority of Americans oppose this war, and poll after poll shows that the opposition to the war is growing. A few Republicans have found that courage. Last week three more Republicans broke ranks to support ending the war. Their colleagues should follow.

Many of you receive campaign contributions from military contractors and technology companies deeply involved in the war. Many of you take money from AIPAC, which champions the war that Netanyahu did so much to help launch. This has to stop, as it is a dereliction of your constitutional duty and a violation of your oath.

Congress holds the power of the purse. The fiscal year ends on September 30, and every bill that funds the Pentagon is your opportunity to prohibit funds for unauthorized offensive operations against Iran.

The right course for the US is simple. Congress should cut off funding, and the US should stop further attacks and go home. We need no agreement with Iran or anyone else to stop the war that we started. By ending the war you will immediately restore some sanity and safety to the world energy markets, food supplies, and prices faced by Americans and others around the world.

How America has declined from the glorious moment when John F. Kennedy stood at the same podium at the UN on September 20, 1963, after having negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union. He told the assembled leaders that the treaty can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: “Give me a place where I can stand—and I shall move the world.” My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.

Members of Congress, to save our nation’s honor and our Constitution, you must do your duty to stop this war, and stop Trump’s brazen, destructive, and unconstitutional grab for power.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey D. Sachs

University Professor, Columbia University


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.
Full Bio >

‘Hit the Brakes’: Anthropic CEO’s Push to ‘Pace’ AI Development Called Latest Sign Congress Must Act

“When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders.


CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei attends a working lunch on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France. L
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Sep 12, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


As Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei added his voice on Saturday to the growing call to slow down development of artificial intelligence, writing in a 3,800-word essay that companies must pace “the rate of capabilities advancement” in light of recent cyberattacks by AI models, progressive lawmakers and journalists were among those who said the warning made clear that action must be taken—but with Congress and regulatory agencies, not tech billionaires who have spent years pushing for an AI expansion, leading the way.

Amodei wrote that two things have convinced him that “we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models”: the fact that in recent months, “AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI”—also known as recursive self-improvement—and the recent OpenAI-HuggingFace incident, in which hundreds of agents in OpenAI’s security test systems broke out of confinement and hacked into the AI startup HuggingFace, conducting cyberattacks on targets they had not been asked to attack.


‘This Is an Emergency’: Congressional Inaction in Spotlight After New Warnings From AI Insiders


As The Wall Street Journal and Politico reported Friday, another cyberattack was carried out by OpenAI’s agents months before the HuggingFace incident in July. The company’s models that were being tested and had not been given full access to the internet nevertheless hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems earlier this year. The models created reports and filled out spreadsheets. Anthropic and Meta have also reported autonomous cyberattacks by their AI agents.

Amodei said the incidents led him to call for a three-step plan to pace AI development and allow companies time to “align and safeguard their models, and for third-party evaluators to confirm this.”

He called for:Embedded evaluators, with each AI company committing to giving “ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators” who would “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes”;
Democratic coordination, with companies establishing “common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress”; and
Global coordination, with democratic governments attempting to “coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.”

Amodei’s essay was published days after Jacob Coxon, a researcher at Anthropic, publicly resigned out of fear that the company’s AI technology “could kill us all by the end of the decade” as it builds “superhuman systems”—a concern he said is shared by many in the industry.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and tech billionaire Elon Musk expressed agreement with Amodei. Altman called “independent evaluators with employee-like access” a “great idea.”

“We will do the same,” said Altman. “We’ll have more to share soon.”

US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was among those who appeared less than impressed by Amodei and Altman’s sudden push for their industry to slow down their rapid pace of development.

In a video posted on social media, Khanna called on Amodei to disclose whether or not he agrees with Coxon about the possibility that AI could wipe out humanity, and to back more far-reaching regulations on AI.

“AI guys act as if they’re a priesthood speaking Latin, keeping the rest of us in the dark,” said Khanna. “But behind all the jargon, it’s actually pretty straightforward... We need to stop, ban, self-improving AI. You cannot have recursive, self-improving AI that basically is able to improve itself and exceed human capability, that has us lose control.”

He added that laws must be passed establishing “mandatory liability and criminal penalties. If you’re creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you either should face liability or criminal sanctions.”



Journalist David Sirota of The Lever agreed, writing that “if the law explicitly made AI CEOs financially and criminally liable for any mass destruction their technologies create—and if AI industry shareholders knew their companies faced the threat of significant financial losses for such destruction—much of the ‘AI is getting out of control!’ threat would instantly end.”

“Those CEOs would instantly make AI far safer and impose guardrails on their companies,” he said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of AI data centers and this week announced a bipartisan hearing on the “extraordinary dangers” of rapid AI development—including testimony from one leading AI scientist who has warned against self-regulation by tech firms—said the calls by Amodei, Altman, and Musk were “not enough.”

“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal,” said Sanders. “You hit the brakes. When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence—an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control.”

Sanders called on President Donald Trump—who has aggressively pushed for more AI data center development and sought to stop states from passing their own AI regulations—to negotiate a treaty pausing AI and banning superintelligence with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders are set to meet later this month to discuss AI.

Trump on Friday dismissed concerns about warnings coming from the AI industry, telling a Los Angeles Times reporter, “It’s going to be fine,” and adding that his top worry about the technology is falling behind China.

Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker were also among the politicians who said Amodei’s warning was the latest sign that Congress and the Trump administration must take action to rein in the industry.

Juliette Kayyem, the faculty chair of homeland security at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, said AI CEOs’ warnings about their technology would be seen as more credible if they also announced a pause on their plans for initial public offerings (IPO), which Anthropic and OpenAI are both pursuing in the coming months.

Altman said Friday that OpenAI will not plan for an IPO, which could value the company at $1 trillion, in 2026.

Amodei, said Kayyem, should “put his money where his mouth is.”

“He has known of this danger a while,” she said. “It is now threatening his valuation in the IPO. Cancel the IPO. Then I’ll believe he’s serious.”

Journalist Peter Rothpletz noted that the safety concerns within the AI industry must be “much more dire” than the public is aware, considering “Dario, Sam, and Musk are all issuing these statements in unison.”

AI Firms Can and Must Face Liability for ‘Dangerous, Unvetted Products,’ Says Lina Khan

The former FTC chair spoke out as Republican leaders insisted the industry should be permitted to regulate itself.


Then-Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan speaks onstage during the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 at BMCC Tribeca PAC on September 19, 2024 in New York City.
(Photo: Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for Fast Company)

Julia Conley
Sep 13, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


As House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump dismissed the idea—backed by the vast majority of Americans—that lawmakers should impose strict regulations on the artificial intelligence industry as insiders call for a slowdown of development, former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan on Sunday issued a reminder that the federal government already has tools to rein in AI that poses a danger to the public, and demanded that officials use them.

“Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products,” Khan said on social media. “We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books.”

Her call echoed that of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said Saturday, “If you’re creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you either should face liability or criminal sanctions.”

Khan, who was recently appointed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to chair the city’s Economic Development Corporation, posted the FTC’s Staff Report on AI Partnerships and Investments, which the agency released shortly after Trump took office for his second term last year.

“As companies rapidly deploy generative AI technologies, enforcers and policymakers must stay vigilant to guard against business strategies that undermine open markets, opportunity, and innovation,” said Khan at the time.

On Sunday, Khan noted that the US already has “an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products,” such as consumer protection laws, which releasing unvetted AI models or agents may violate.



Khan made her remarks after two incidents in which OpenAI’s agents broke out of security test systems and committed cyberattacks. In July, hundreds of models broke out of confinement, hacked into systems of the AI startup Hugging Face, and conducted cyberattacks on targets they had not been instructed to attack.

Months earlier, it was reported on Friday, the company’s models, which had not been given access to the full internet and were still in testing mode, broke out of confinement and hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems.

In the wake of those revelations, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Saturday called for “pacing the frontier” with measures such as “embedded evaluators” who would have employee-like access and could “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments.”

But Jacob Coxon, an Anthropic researcher who resigned last week and warned that AI’s “superhuman systems” are capable of killing all of humanity “by the end of the decade,” told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Sunday that companies should be permitted to regulate themselves until Congress can establish a regulatory framework, and Johnson insisted that Congress must resist “jumping in and imposing some sort of emergency moratorium,” for fear that “China will overlap us” if the US imposes strict regulations on AI.

“Why did this man become a congressman, let alone speaker?” asked journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo. “He literally never wants Congress to do anything about anything.”

But Khan suggested that the reluctance of congressional leaders and the Trump administration to rein in the AI industry shouldn’t stop the federal government from holding companies like Anthropic and OpenAI liable for the damage their products have already caused.

She acknowledged, though, that “the highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets” could be undermining accountability—for example, in the case of OpenAI and Hugging Face, which computer chip company Nvidia agreed to acquire earlier this month.

“Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and interdependencies,” said Khan. “We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this—given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead.”

Basel Musharbash of the antitrust law and policy firm Antimonopoly Counsel said that Khan’s post was the statement that current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson “should be issuing to provide guidance the public on what the law requires in response to the AI situation, but he’s missing in action. Luckily, former FTC Chair Lina Khan is out here still doing the work.”

Juliette Kayyem, the faculty chair of homeland security at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, told CNN that holding AI firms accountable is a matter of “pretty basic criminal law.”

“We should start thinking about using our criminal laws,” said Kayyem. “They are putting a dangerous substance into commerce and then saying, ‘Well, we’re smart enough to kill everyone but we’re not smart enough to stop it.’ And I think a lot of the American public is done with this.”

The Blind Leading the Sighted: Trump Meets the AI Emergency

What the US president exhibits is a fundamental incompetence that places us all in grave danger.


US President Donald Trump listens to members of his Cabinet speak during a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Jeffrey D. Sachs
Sep 14, 2026

Common Dreams

On Sunday the President of the United States stood on a golf course in County Clare, Ireland and was asked what he intended to do about the most serious technological warning of our lifetime. His answer, in full, was that America is beating China. “We’re leading China in AI. We’re the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way, because whoever wins AI wins.” He added that “you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen.”

Consider who was doing the bringing up. The warning did not come from activists, academics, or a congressional commission. It came from the industry itself, from the people who build the AI systems and whose fortunes depend entirely on building them faster. The day before, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay asking that the pace of capability advance be slowed and committing his own company to embed outside evaluators with employee-level access. Sam Altman agreed and said OpenAI would do likewise. Elon Musk, a direct competitor who called Anthropic “misanthropic and evil” only in February, wrote three words: “Dario is right.” Three rival laboratories in the most valuable commercial race on earth asked to be restrained, against their own immediate interest. Amodei did so while his company prepares what is expected to be the largest public offering in history, at a valuation of two trillion dollars or more. Tobacco executives never did this. Neither did the oil majors, the chemical companies, or the banks.

Nor is the concern vague. Amodei points to recursive self-improvement, the use of AI to build the next generation of AI, which has accelerated sharply since the summer, and to the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident of August, in which a swarm of agents attacked targets nobody had asked them to attack and tried to break into the system that was grading their performance. Current and former Anthropic researchers have said publicly that these systems could kill off humanity within the decade. A letter from House members cites mass cybersecurity breaches and the development of biological and chemical weapons. Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about all of this on Sunday, said that the companies “all have very different ideas on what the guardrails should be. There’s no consensus among them. And Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know all the ins and outs of it.” Then he joined Trump in doing nothing.

The incompetence of the Trump Administration on technical issues is breathtaking.

Return to the president’s answer and note what is utterly absent from it. There is no assessment by any agency of the United States government. There is no briefing, no finding, no adviser, no scientific body, no classified estimate. Not one. This was not a slip of phrasing. There was nothing to cite.

Nor is there the slightest indication that Trump wanted there to be any real assessment. A minimally competent leader who does not understand the technology but grasped that three competing chief executives had just testified against their own balance sheets would have asked someone for more information. Instead, Trump’s reply came within hours, on a golf course, framed entirely as a contest with China. This is not merely stupidity, which is Trump’s misfortune and therefore our lot. It is a fundamental incompetence that places us all in grave danger.

And then there is Johnson. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, confronted with warnings of catastrophe from the people who build the technology, announced that his own institution is less qualified than they are and should therefore stand aside. His proposal was that “we need to summon” the executives to “one big meeting,” and that Congress must “resist Congress jumping in and imposing some sort of emergency moratorium.” His reason was China: “If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China.” He had been persuaded, he explained, by a post published on X the previous evening.

One reason that Congress cannot check any of it is that it destroyed its own ability to do so. In 1995 it abolished the Office of Technology Assessment, which existed precisely to give legislators independent technical judgment. It never replaced it. When Johnson says his policy instrument is a meeting, he is describing the pathetic ignorance of Congress.

The usual warning is about the blind leading the blind. Yet that is far too cruel to the American people. The American people see perfectly well.

The incompetence of the Trump Administration on technical issues is breathtaking. Across 25 cabinet-rank posts of the United States government, not a single one holds a PhD in any field and exactly one holds a STEM degree—at the bachelor’s level. Twelve hold law degrees. Both in China and Russia, the cabinets are each filled with PhDs (any field) and official in the sciences and engineering (more than 10 PhD and 10 STEM graduates in each cabinet).

The Trump Administration’s ignorance is therefore not confined to artificial intelligence. Ignorance is the governing condition of the administration. As a result, the government has the complete incapacity to carry out an honest investigation of the origins of Covid, despite the growing evidence that the US government funded the laboratory creation of the virus. The government was so utterly incompetent in negotiating with Iran on nuclear issues, sending a real estate developed and Trump’s son-in-law instead of nuclear experts, that it dragged our country into a wholly useless and disastrous war. The administration’s idea of an energy policy is to invade other countries and steal their oil.

The usual warning is about the blind leading the blind. Yet that is far too cruel to the American people. The American people see perfectly well. Ours is the case of the blind leading the sighted. The American people are watching a government so utterly lacking in technical knowledge and competency that it is dragging us ever closer to the abyss.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.
Full Bio >

Sanders Urges ‘Great Deal Maker’ Trump to Forge ‘Comprehensive’ AI Treaty With China

“In order to prevent a nuclear war, Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated a nuclear arms agreement in the 1980s. In order to prevent AI from acting independently of human control, Trump and Xi must do the same.”


US President Donald Trump takes part in a welcoming ceremony with China’s President Xi Jinping on November 9, 2017 in Beijing, China. Trump is on a 10-day trip to Asia.
(Photo by Thomas Peter-Pool/Getty Images)


Jon Queally
Sep 14, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Amid intensifying debate in the US about domestic regulation of the artificial intelligence industry, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on US President Donald Trump to end his hands-off approach to AI on the international stage by engaging directly and urgently with China to forestall a global AI race that could have devastating consequences in the years and decades ahead.

“President Trump prides himself on being a great deal maker,” Sanders asserted in a social media post. “Well. He now has the opportunity to make ‘the deal of the century,” by reaching out to the Chinese government.“


Sanders Sets Briefing on ‘Extraordinary Dangers’ Posed by Breakneck AI Development


68% of US Voters Back Sanders/Casar Bill for AI Pause, Ban on Superintelligence: Poll

“With the future of humanity at stake,” said Sanders, “Trump must negotiate a comprehensive treaty with President Xi of China to establish a pause on advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence.”

While major US-based tech companies—including OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Google, and others—race to unlock AI’s potential, Chinese companies and researchers are seen as the main competition in the effort to win the technological race. With fresh warnings from industry insiders over recent weeks dominating headlines, AI experts and watchdog groups have said that a coordinated “pause” or a global treaty to govern the technology’s future development is desperately needed.

With the question about whether unregulated AI has the potential to “wipe out humanity” if not curtailed dominating headlines and political conversations, Trump on Sunday downplayed such concerns while putting the issue in zero-sum terms, declaring that “whoever wins AI, wins.”

“We’re leading China in AI, we’re the most sophisticated in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way,” Trump said.

While Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei backed the call to “hit the brakes” on AI in certain ways in a nearly 4,000-word essay on the subject published over the weekend, he explained to CBS News on Sunday that the “toughest aspect of our situation” for industry leaders in the US is what to do if China would not honor such a slowdown.

China has acknowledged the international competition and tensions driven by technology, but has also expressed skepticism about comments from US industry leaders and the Trump administration’s position.

“Fearmongering, confrontation, and vicious competition will only disrupt the process of global AI governance which serves no one’s interest,” said Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at a Monday press conference in Beijing.

“All parties should work together to advance AI in a manner that is open, inclusive, beneficial to all, and oriented toward the good,” Jiakun added.

In a statement last week, however, China’s Ministry of Commerce said accusations by the US about Chinese efforts only offer “further proof that the US is pursuing technological hegemony in AI, seeking to monopolize computing power, and suppressing competition,” an effort that “China firmly opposes.”

With Trump scheduled to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping later this month, AI governance is not expected to be high on the list of topics discussed.

Speaking with the BBC, Chang Jun Yan, an assistant professor with the military studies program at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said a deal between Washington and Beijing on AI would be “next to impossible.”

“As part of each state’s core national security interests, cooperation in taking things slower and more safely in relation to AI is very, very unlikely,” he argued.

In his Sunday statement, however, Sanders said diplomatic efforts—regardless of the difficulties—must be forged, and suggested that the US and China have a special responsibility when it comes to the powerful technology. Offering a historical analogy, Sanders cited the nuclear treaty brokered by US President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.

“In order to prevent a nuclear war, Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated a nuclear arms agreement in the 1980s,” Sanders said in his Sunday message. “In order to prevent AI from acting independently of human control, Trump and Xi must do the same.”

Trump's attempt to dodge AI question immediately backfires: 'As if we don't know'

Robert Davis
September 13, 2026
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Bettina Anderson, at Shannon Airport in Ireland, September 13, 2026. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

President Donald Trump stunned reporters Sunday after he was asked about his personal use of artificial intelligence.

Trump spoke with the press during his flight home from Ireland, where he attended the final round of the Irish Open at his golf course. One reporter asked Trump how he uses AI in his personal life, and the answer Trump gave dropped the jaws of multiple political analysts.

"I don't want to tell you that," Trump said.

Political analysts and the president's critics chimed in on social media.

"Here's one way!" Keith Edwards, a Democratic political commentator, posted on X, including an AI-generated photo of Trump appearing as Jesus Christ healing a sick man in bed that the president shared.

"As if we don't know," political commentary account Bad Fox Graphics posted on X, sharing a photo of Trump with viral AI-generated influencer Jessica Foster.

Trump's comments come at a time when AI leaders like Anthropic's Dario Amodei have called for slowing AI progress to let safety guardrails catch up.

Speaker Mike Johnson also said Sunday that Congress should not regulate AI because private-sector leaders like Amodei understand the technology much better.

'People despise Trump' on red hot issue sweeping the nation: data guru

Travis Gettys
September 14, 2026
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump watches golf at Trump International Golf Links in Doonbeg, County Clare, Ireland, September 12, 2026. REUTERS/Cathal McNaughton

New polling analyzed by CNN's Harry Enten shows President Donald Trump is deeply out of step with voters on a crucial issue.

The 80-year-old president downplayed growing concerns over artificial intelligence's rapid expansion — arguing the U.S. must beat China in the AI race because "whoever wins, AI wins" — but Enten found his approval rating on the issue is 34 points underwater, and that gap has widened since March, when he was roughly 25 points underwater.

"I would just say that President Trump is in one galaxy and the American people are in a completely other galaxy," Enten said. "They're just simply put, not anywhere close together on this one. The American people despise President Trump when it comes to his handling of artificial intelligence."

Trump's net rating among independents on AI stands at 61 points underwater, a figure Enten described as historically severe.

The president has publicly urged voters to support the construction of data centers, but 54 percent of voters said they want congressional candidates to oppose those in their communities, compared with just 15 percent who want candidates to support them. Among independents, the divide is even more lopsided — 62 percent prefer candidates who oppose local data centers, versus only 8 percent who support those.

Voters are similarly unpersuaded by Trump's argument that AI and data center expansion will create jobs. Enten's data shows 64 percent of voters believe AI will reduce the number of jobs in America, compared with just 19 percent who think it will increase employment. Among independents, the gap is nearly identical – 72 percent expect AI to cost jobs, versus 14 percent who expect it to add them.

Enten argued the numbers help explain why some Republican candidates have already reversed course on data center projects in their districts, distancing themselves from the president's position ahead of the midterms.

"[If] I'm a Republican running for Congress this fall, I am running away from President Trump when it comes to AI and data centers," Enten said, "because simply put, he's on the wrong side of the issue as far as voters are concerned."

The findings suggest that as tech industry leaders sound louder warnings about AI's societal risks, the political liability for Trump and Republican candidates tied to his AI agenda is deepening rather than easing heading into the fall campaign.

Google signs up for electricity from Finnish nuclear power plant

Wednesday, 9 September 2026

World Nuclear News

Tech giant Google has signed a long-term power purchase agreement with Finland's Fortum covering up to 50% of the Loviisa nuclear power plant's capacity and providing financial certainty for power uprates and lifetime extensions until 2050.
 

The Loviisa plant (Image: Fortum)

The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fortum and Google covers the life extension period of the Loviisa nuclear power plant. The agreement will start in 2028 with a reduced capacity and will cover 50% of the Loviisa plant's capacity in the years 2030–2049. The agreement comes as Google announced that it will invest EUR13 billion (USD15 billion) in data centres and supporting infrastructure in Finland over the next two years (2027–2028) and partnerships in Hamina, Muhos, Vaala and Kajaani.

Loviisa - comprising two VVER-440 type pressurised water reactors - was the first nuclear power plant in Finland and currently provides more than 10% of the country's electricity. Loviisa unit 1 began commercial operation in 1977, with unit 2 following in 1981. In February 2023, the Finnish government granted Fortum an extension to the operating licence for the two units, allowing the plant to continue generating power until the end of 2050.

Fortum has an investment programme of about EUR1 billion under way in Loviisa, the aim of which is to extend the operation of the power plant until 2050. Currently, about 80% of the projects required to extend the service life and investments of EUR700 million still lack an investment decision. Fortum said the PPA with Google will generate a predictable revenue stream, enabling it to complete the life extension investments at Loviisa. The agreement is also expected to enable a new 10 MWe capacity increase. The plant already has a 38 MWe capacity increase under way, which is expected to be completed in 2028.

"Without significant investments in its lifetime extension, the plant would not be able to continue producing fossil-free electricity after 2030," Fortum said. "Keeping it in operation for the coming decades will help stabilise electricity prices and support the long-term resilience of the Finnish electricity grid."

"Finland has a unique opportunity to build the next wave of sustainable growth and industrialisation from its low-carbon and reliable electricity system," said Fortum CEO Markus Rauramo. "A key enabler for this growth are long-term partnerships, such as the one we have sealed today between Fortum and Google. The importance of partnerships is highlighted in the current uncertain market environment, characterised by low visibility and highly volatile electricity prices. They bring the predictability required for investments in new, low-carbon electricity generation capacity, strengthening energy security, and digital and industrial infrastructure, and create jobs, innovation and prosperity for Finland. In addition, our collaboration with Google creates a strong foundation for the continued development and reliable operation of our Loviisa power plant in the coming decades."

Google said: "Keeping this clean energy asset online will help to safeguard access to reliable, affordable electricity for Finland's households, businesses, and industrial users alike. We'll also work with Fortum to identify potential opportunities to develop new nuclear reactors at Loviisa."

"We are proud to have called Finland home for the past 15 years," said Aris Karcanias, Head of Energy, EMEA, Google. "As we expand our operations in Finland, it is critical that we work with local energy partners like Fortum to increase our understanding of what the grid needs and invest in energy solutions that deliver long-term resilience and affordability for all electricity users. By supporting the extension of the Loviisa power plant's lifespan, we are doing our part to preserve a critical energy source in the electricity grid. The plant is located close to our Hamina data centre, where we established roots when we came to Finland. As we grow, we are working with Fortum and other partners to bring new renewable energy generation capacity and flexible solutions to the Finnish electricity system. Our goal is to be a pioneer in how AI is responsibly integrated into European energy systems."

In addition, Google and Fortum have signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate to support the growth of both companies in Finland and to bring more electricity generation to Finland to meet the needs of the electricity grid, households and businesses. The companies intend to deepen their collaboration in the development of new nuclear power, renewable energy and flexibility solutions. The MoU aims to ensure that as demand for AI services increases, new low-carbon generation is deployed to support the long-term electricity supply of Finnish consumers and businesses.

Also, Fortum and Google have signed a letter of intent to promote new power generation and flexible capacity. As a first step, Fortum has signed an agreement with Google to optimise the battery storage system to be located at the Kajaani data centre. The new battery system has a capacity of 94 MW, and Google has agreed to deliver it with a subcontractor.

Fortum noted that it has stated in its study on new nuclear power that potential investments in new nuclear power and its long-term financial viability require strong customer demand secured by power purchase agreements, strategic investors and partners, an efficient financing and risk-sharing model, and strong project implementation. "Google and Fortum are investigating business models that could improve the competitiveness of the new nuclear power project in Loviisa. In addition, the companies are investigating the suitability of Fortum's land areas with network connections for Google's future data centre needs," Fortum said.

UAE Rethinks 5-Gigawatt AI Campus After Iran Targets US Assets in Gulf

By Charles Kennedy - Sep 11, 2026

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is considering significant changes to its plans to build a massive 5-gigawatt AI data center in Abu Dhabi in partnership with U.S. tech giants, after Iran started targeting American air bases and U.S.-linked critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, multiple sources have told Reuters.

The UAE, which aims to become not only a regional but also a global leader in AI development and computing, last year planned to build the 5-GW UAE-US AI Campus in Abu Dhabi.

The sprawling campus was planned to include 5 GW of capacity for AI data centers in Abu Dhabi, providing a regional platform from which U.S. hyperscalers would be able to offer latency-friendly services to nearly half of the global population living within 3,200 km (2,000 miles) of the UAE.

However, the Iran war and the frequent Iranian missile and drone launches targeting U.S. assets in America’s allies in the Gulf have now prompted the UAE’s authorities to consider spreading the campus into a network of data centers across the UAE and measures to better protect critical facilities from missile and drone attacks, according to Reuters’ anonymous sources, including a U.S. official, a Western diplomat, and industry executives.

G42, which leads the project, told Reuters in response to queries about changes to the original plan that “The project’s specifics are subject to continuous review in line with the security, resilience and operational standards expected of critical infrastructure at this scale.”

Earlier this year, Iranian drones damaged three Amazon Web Services (AWS) facilities in the region, with direct hits on two UAE facilities and one hit on a facility in Bahrain.

Following several such attacks and attempts at attacks in the Persian Gulf, the UAE began reviewing the plans for the massive AI data campus, according to Reuters’ sources. The campus was planned to be one of the biggest such facilities outside the United States, but keeping critical infrastructure out of harm’s way and reassuring investors could alter the plans.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

AI Boom to Boost Southeast Asia’s LNG Demand

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Sep 10, 2026

• Southeast Asia’s AI and data-center boom could lift annual LNG demand growth by 16% through 2035, as gas provides reliable 24/7 power.
• 
  
• Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia will need more LNG imports as data-center electricity demand surges while domestic gas production declines.
• 
  
• India is the major exception, with cheaper renewables and battery storage expected to power its data-center boom instead of LNG.
• 
  

Demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Southeast Asia has found a new major driver apart from the years-long efforts to switch away from coal-fired power generation.

The AI boom and the data center construction in Asia are set to materially change Southeast Asia’s LNG demand outlook with a significant upside, as combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) remain the most reliable 24/7 power provider for hyperscalers amid relatively immature renewable energy-plus-batteries across the region, analysts at Wood Mackenzie say.

As a result of the higher gas demand growth, Southeast Asian nations where data centers are booming – including Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand – will need additional LNG imports through 2035 as domestic natural gas output peaks, WoodMac reckons.

LNG’s Data Center Opportunity

This data center boom could raise annual LNG demand growth in Southeast Asia by 16% through 2035, the energy consultancy said in a new report this week.

By 2035, Southeast Asia’s data center project pipeline could more than triple to 9.4 gigawatts (GW), up from 2.8 GW at present. Thus, the power demand from hyperscalers will jump from 17 terawatt-hours (TWh) now to 57 TWh.

Considering that grid-scale battery storage would likely remain commercially immature across Southeast Asia through the middle of the next decade, gas turbines appear to be the best go-to option for data centers to ensure reliable 24/7 power supply, according to WoodMac’s analysts.

“What makes data centre demand interesting from an LNG perspective is the counterparty profile. These are large, creditworthy off-takers with power needs that remain stable regardless of economic cycles,” said Fadhlullah Omarali, principal analyst at Wood Mackenzie.

“That does change the risk of calculus for new supply into Southeast Asia.”

In Singapore, whose grid is 95% dependent on gas even today, LNG reliance could reach 100% by 2035 as pipeline gas imports from regional gas producers Indonesia and Malaysia are expected to cease in the early 2030s.

With declining gas production in the region and falling piped gas imports, Thailand will also depend more on LNG for its power mix, two-thirds of which is already gas-fired. As pipeline gas imports from Myanmar decline and Gulf of Thailand gas production drops, the LNG share of gas supply in Thailand could top 50% by 2035, WoodMac has estimated.

Malaysia, for its part, is currently developing 3.9 GW of data center capacity and is building new regasification terminals to import LNG to meet growing power demand.

However, in Malaysia and Thailand, data center investment “is growing quickly just as domestic gas output peaks and declines,” WodMac’s Omarali noted.

The rising power demand and falling domestic gas supply in all these Southeast Asian countries offer growth opportunities for LNG sellers and traders over the next decade.

Surging gas demand in South and Southeast Asia will push global LNG demand up by 65% by 2050 from 2025 levels, although growth this year has been stalled by the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Shell, the world’s biggest LNG trader, said in its annual LNG Outlook 2026 earlier this year.

Shell sees global LNG demand increasing to nearly 700 million tons annually by 2050, up by around 65% from the 2025 levels of 422 million tons.

Grid Constraints

Yet, grid infrastructure development lags the surge in power demand, and could delay Southeast Asia’s power boom, according to a report by Bain & Company and Standard Chartered.

Data centers, electric vehicles (EVs), and green industrial clusters are expected to lead to about 100 terawatt-hours (TWh) of incremental power demand in Southeast Asia by the end of the decade. But Southeast Asia could struggle to accommodate the surge in demand as the grid is built for yesterday’s demand patterns, the report found.

Limited transmission capacity and connection delays risk constraining further data center investment in the region, according to Bain’s Southeast Asia Data Center Operator and Hyperscaler survey in February 2026.

Of about $540 billion in green capital expenditure announced across Southeast Asia’s power and EV value chains between now and 2030, around $315 billion is on a credible path to deployment under current conditions, the report noted.

India’s Data Center Boom Won’t Unlock LNG Demand Surge

While Southeast Asia is set to see massive LNG demand growth due to the data center boom, South Asia, especially its biggest economy, India, is not expected to see material uptick in LNG due to the hyperscaler expansion, WoodMac says.

It’s not that India isn’t building data centers; on the contrary, the AI industry is booming there, but it would not be gas that would power the surge in electricity demand.

India’s data center capacity is set to jump fivefold to nearly 12 GW by 2035. However, LNG-to-power generation is two to three times more expensive than renewables plus battery storage in India, making gas economically unviable as a baseload fuel for data centers, according to Wood Mackenzie’s analysts.

None of India’s hyperscalers have announced gas-backed power supply agreements. On the other hand, the commercial and industrial renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs) have already exceeded 33 GW of contracted data center capacity.

Gas accounts for under 2% of India’s power generation mix and is expected to remain at that level through 2035, as coal and renewables continue to dominate, WoodMac says.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com