Showing posts sorted by date for query HOT MONEY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query HOT MONEY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2026

Carney accuses US steelmaker of betraying Canadian workers after layoffs tied to Trump tariffs

ROB GILLIES
Updated Tue, September 29, 2026
AP


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks after LNG Canada said it will go ahead with the Phase 2 expansion project at its LNG terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia, during an announcement in Vancouver, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press via AP) (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press via AP)


TORONTO (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney accused the U.S. owner of steelmaker Stelco, a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs, of betraying Canadian workers Tuesday after it announced layoffs it attributed in part to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs — tariffs Cleveland-Cliffs' chief executive has publicly championed.

Carney singled out Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves, noting that he had applauded Trump's steel tariffs. Goncalves has called the 50% tariffs "a necessary step" to protect U.S. steelmakers.

"Our thoughts are with the workers and the families who have been betrayed by the company," Carney said.

Carney also threatened legal action against Cleveland-Cliffs, saying the Ohio-based company has binding employment obligations stemming from its C$3.4 billion ($2.4 billion) takeover of Stelco in 2024.

Stelco said up to 500 workers could be affected as it indefinitely idles cold-rolled and coated operations at its Hamilton, Ontario, plant and shifts production to its Lake Erie facility in Nanticoke, Ontario.

Cleveland-Cliffs said Monday the move does not shift steel production out of Canada: Output will be concentrated at Stelco's Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke, Ontario, where it expects a significant number of affected Hamilton workers to be absorbed, with overall steel tonnage unchanged.

In a memo to employees, Stelco said U.S. tariffs had "significantly shrunk the market" for its cold-rolled and galvanized products. The company said demand in markets it traditionally serves fell almost 25% in the second quarter compared to the 2024 quarterly average, including a 10% decline in Canada.

The layoffs come amid an escalating Canada-U.S. trade war in which Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on Canadian steel and other goods and Canada has retaliated with tariffs of its own. At a White House event Monday announcing a new $15 billion steel plant in Iowa, Trump credited his tariffs with reducing foreign steel imports and attracting investment to the United States, saying companies were building plants there "because they don't want to pay tariffs."

Carney said the federal government had offered financial assistance to preserve jobs but did not disclose the amount or terms.

"There's money on the table from the federal government," Carney said. "The company made representations and has legal obligations for employment. We intend to use all powers that we have and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law."

The Canadian government approved Cleveland-Cliffs' takeover of Stelco in October 2024 on the condition that it meet legally binding five-year employment commitments, including maintaining at least the same number of unionized workers and the vast majority of nonunion employees.

Cleveland-Cliffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Carney's remarks.


Hamilton steel plant to lay off hundreds of workers as U.S. tariffs prompt 'survival' move

CBC
Mon, September 28, 2026


Stelco Hamilton Works production facility is seen in September 2024. Stelco said it will indefinitely idle its cold-rolled and coated operations at its Hamilton Works plant on Monday. (Patrick Morrell/CBC - image credit)


Stelco Holdings Inc. said on Monday that it plans to idle part of its Hamilton plant in order to "ensure the survival" of the company, as U.S. tariffs squeeze its sales.

Stelco said the decision will impact up to 500 employees.

In a memo obtained by CBC News on Monday, the company said it will indefinitely idle its cold-rolled and coated operations at its Hamilton Works plant, with operations set to begin winding down on Oct. 9.

Ron Wells, president of United Steelworkers Local 1005, estimates 350 steelworkers will be laid off. He says he was briefed on the situation in a meeting with the company on Monday morning.

"Obviously, we got to meet with the company, and find out who's getting laid off, [and] make sure it's done by seniority," Wells told CBC News on Monday. "Christmas ain't that far away, and we have no idea the duration of these layoffs … People are concerned. I don't blame them."

The company said this will not impact its ability to supply hot-rolled steel products.

"This is an unfortunate but necessary action to help ensure the survival of Stelco in what has become a challenging and unsustainable market for cold-rolled and coated products caused by the ongoing and sustained trade disruptions impacting the Canadian steel industry," Stelco vice-president of sales Frederic Fafard stated in the memo.

An aerial photo of the Stelco Hamilton steel production facility. (Patrick Morrell/CBC)

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in June applying up to 50 per cent tariffs to certain steel and aluminum imports from Canada.

"Stelco's market for cold-rolled and galvanized products has contracted significantly, while import penetration for these products remains at heightened levels," Fafard said in the memo.

"While the measures taken by the federal government in Canada have served to reduce imports into Canada overall, import volumes remain at levels that prevent Stelco from being able to bridge the gap in the market created by the trade crisis."

Ohio-based Cleveland-Cliffs acquired Hamilton-based Stelco in a $3.4-billion Cdn cash-and-stock deal that closed in November 2024. In a news release announcing the deal, Stelco's then-CEO Alan Kestenbaum stated the transaction "keeps national interests at the forefront and recognizes the importance of the workforce."

"We're very disappointed," Wells said. "In particular, when Cliffs bought us in the fall of 2024, they made commitments. One of those commitments was to maintain the same number of unionized employees."

In an email to CBC News on Monday, a Cleveland-Cliffs spokesperson confirmed Joly has been in touch with chairman and CEO Lourenco Goncalves.

"Both Cliffs and the Canadian government have the interests of the Stelco workers in mind, and will continue to work together to minimize the impact of the current market situation on Canadian workers," wrote Pat Persico, the company's senior director of corporate communications.

She said that while Stelco is idling some of its operations in Hamilton, the company's total output of steel will not be impacted as it consolidates production at its Lake Erie Works.

"Very importantly, job opportunities at Lake Erie Works will be offered to Hamilton employees," Persico wrote in a previous email.

"We expect that a significant number of employees affected by the indefinite idle at Hamilton should be absorbed at Lake Erie Works."

Wells told CBC News on Tuesday that his union was informed that 46 positions would be offered.

Industry Minister 'extremely disappointed'

In a statement on Monday, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly slammed the decision to lay off workers, while noting Ottawa had offered to help Stelco weather the impact of U.S. tariffs.

"Our government has made clear to the company that we are ready and willing to provide financial support to sustain operations and protect jobs. Its decision to reject these practical proposals and continue with layoffs is extremely disappointing," she said.

"Stelco and Cleveland-Cliffs have made significant commitments to Canadian steelworkers. We will use every lever possible to defend Canadian industry, protect jobs, and secure our supply chain."

Trump announces new steel plant in Iowa

On Monday, U.S. President Trump touted a new $15-billion US investment plan by Minnesota-based steelmaker Mesabi Metallics as evidence that American tariffs on imported steel are working as his administration intended.

The company announced plans to build a massive plant in Iowa, with production set to begin in 2030.

"I imposed powerful 50 per cent tariffs on all foreign steel, and now our steel industry is roaring back to life." Trump said at a news announcement in the Oval Office. "Everyone is building their plant here because they don't want to pay tariffs. It's really not that complicated."

The move is raising concerns north of the border, where Kevon Stewart, director of United Steelworkers District 6, said his phone has been lighting up with calls from distressed Canadian workers.

"Everything is timing right now," he told CBC News on Monday.

"This is not only a wake-up call, because the call for action has been there before. But we've got to come up with a game plan that ensures workers are protected if and when these measures are implemented."

He said such protections could include increased benefits, or removing the waiting time for benefits.

Colin Mang, an economist at McMaster University in Hamilton, said the layoffs announced Monday are "a consequence of our trade war with the United States." For Stelco, he said the situation is worsened by a steady flow of foreign products coming into Canada.

"The lack of access to the American market has meant that we have a surplus of steel production capacity here in Canada, and there just isn't enough domestic Canadian demand in order to absorb all of the output from the steelmakers here," Mang told CBC News.

"The Canadian government has worked to restrict the amount of steel coming into Canada, but when you look at a variety of steel products, particularly the kinds of flat products that Stelco manufactures, Canada has imported about 1.2 million tons from other trading partners around the world. That's because we continue to have free trade agreements with a variety of countries. So, it's very difficult to restrict imports from our other trading partners."

Blair Dickerson, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said his thoughts are with the workers impacted by Monday's announcement. He also called upon Canada's federal government and the Trump to resolve their ongoing trade tension.

"Days like today demonstrate how challenging the tariff situation is, and provide a stark reminder as to the urgency of finding a solution," Dickerson said in an email.

"Recognizing the Government's support to date, Canada must continue and deepen the work of keeping unfairly traded steel out of our market, enforcing our measures at the border, and ensuring our producers can be competitive here at home."

Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath said she plans to fight to ensure Stelco and Cleveland-Cliffs live up to the commitments their executives made to workers in her city.

"The fight is not over," she told the CBC's As It Happens radio program on Monday

"This particular company has been very clear ... that they support Donald Trump and his tariffs, and desire to pull all steelmaking back into the United States.

Wells, president of United Steelworkers Local 1005, said it's ironic for a company's whose leadership supports Trump to criticize U.S. tariffs for eroding its business.

"The CEO, Lourenco Goncalves, he's the biggest supporter of Trump and his tariffs. So, it's tough to have any sympathy when you know they're the basically the master of this disaster."



Cleveland-Cliffs slides as report shows Stelco idling plant over US tariffs

Luke Juricic
Mon, September 28, 2026 


Investing.com -- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. shares tumbled nearly 8% in late Monday trading following reports that its Canadian subsidiary, Stelco Holdings Inc., plans to halt operations at a key Ontario processing facility. The decline reflects growing market concern over the compounding toll of trade frictions on North American steel supply chains.

According to a letter to customers obtained by Bloomberg News, Stelco expects to indefinitely idle its cold-rolled and coated operations at Hamilton Works in the coming weeks. The move highlights the acute pressures facing Canadian steelmakers as elevated U.S. import tariffs continue to disrupt regional trade flows and contract domestic demand for downstream products.

The operational curtailment marks a significant setback for the Canadian steel sector, which has struggled to adjust since the U.S. maintained a 50% tariff under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. While Ottawa implemented countermeasures to curb foreign imports, Stelco noted that those actions proved insufficient to offset the market contraction triggered by restricted access to the U.S. market.

To mitigate the fallout, Cleveland-Cliffs is restructuring its operational footprint by shifting primary manufacturing focus to its more integrated Lake Erie Works facility in Nanticoke, Ontario. In an emailed statement sent to Bloomberg, Cliffs spokesperson Patricia Persico emphasized that total steel output will remain unchanged, though the product mix will pivot toward a higher concentration of hot-rolled coil.

The wind-down at the Hamilton facility is scheduled to begin on Oct. 9 and is expected to result in approximately 350 job cuts, according to local reporting from the Hamilton Spectator. Because Hamilton Works functions primarily as a downstream finishing plant, concentrating upstream production at Lake Erie Works allows the parent company to preserve overall tonnage while curtailing higher-cost processing lines.

Stelco assured clients that it will honor existing customer orders during the transition while maintaining full capacity for hot-rolled steel deliveries. Investors, however, appear focused on broader margin compression, watching closely to see whether Cleveland-Cliffs can successfully absorb trade-driven demand shifts without sacrificing profitability across its expanded North American network.




Why Cleveland-Cliffs (CLF) Dipped More Than Broader Market Today





Zacks Equity Research
Mon, September 28, 2026


Cleveland-Cliffs (CLF) ended the recent trading session at $11.22, demonstrating a -7.88% change from the preceding day's closing price. This change lagged the S&P 500's 0.77% loss on the day. Elsewhere, the Dow lost 0.67%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq lost 0.92%.

Shares of the mining company witnessed a gain of 4.82% over the previous month, beating the performance of the Basic Materials sector with its loss of 9.1%, and the S&P 500's gain of 0.96%.


Market participants will be closely following the financial results of Cleveland-Cliffs in its upcoming release. In that report, analysts expect Cleveland-Cliffs to post earnings of $0.24 per share. This would mark year-over-year growth of 153.33%. In the meantime, our current consensus estimate forecasts the revenue to be $5.6 billion, indicating a 18.25% growth compared to the corresponding quarter of the prior year.

Regarding the entire year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates forecast earnings of -$0.04 per share and revenue of $21.1 billion, indicating changes of +98.39% and +13.4%, respectively, compared to the previous year.

Investors should also note any recent changes to analyst estimates for Cleveland-Cliffs. Recent revisions tend to reflect the latest near-term business trends. Hence, positive alterations in estimates signify analyst optimism regarding the business and profitability.

Empirical research indicates that these revisions in estimates have a direct correlation with impending stock price performance. To exploit this, we've formed the Zacks Rank, a quantitative model that includes these estimate changes and presents a viable rating system.

The Zacks Rank system, which ranges from #1 (Strong Buy) to #5 (Strong Sell), has an impressive outside-audited track record of outperformance, with #1 stocks generating an average annual return of +25% since 1988. Over the last 30 days, the Zacks Consensus EPS estimate has witnessed a 7.69% increase. As of now, Cleveland-Cliffs holds a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold).

The Steel - Producers industry is part of the Basic Materials sector. With its current Zacks Industry Rank of 68, this industry ranks in the top 28% of all industries, numbering over 250.

The Zacks Industry Rank gauges the strength of our industry groups by measuring the average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within the groups. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1.


Trump unveils plans to build $15B steel mill in Iowa

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters during an announcement in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. He shared plans to build a $15 billion steel plant spearheaded by Mesabi Metallics. · Manufacturing Dive · Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images

Nathan Owens
Tue, September 29, 2026 
 Manufacturing Dive. 

Dive Brief:

President Donald Trump on Monday announced a Minnesota steelmaker's plans to invest $15 billion in Iowa to build what would become the largest U.S. steel mill.



The Mesabi Metallics-led project will create 1,750 jobs and add 10 million tons of annual steel production capacity, Trump said at the Oval Office. It is also expected to generate $95 billion for the U.S. economy during construction and the first 10 years of operations.



The company, which is backed by India-based conglomerate Essar Group, recently opened an iron ore mine in Minnesota that will supply pellets to the Iowa mill once completed. Steel production is set to begin in 2030, Trump said. Federal and state funding details have yet to be disclosed.



Dive Insight:


The Trump administration has made domestic metals production a top priority, citing national security and military supply concerns amid a war with Iran.

At the same time, Trump's tariff strategy has cut imports of foreign steel and raised U.S. steel prices. He doubled the Section 232 rate on metal imports to 50% last summer and has since made adjustments to close loopholes and allow exemptions for certain products.

On the other hand, higher raw material costs are squeezing manufacturers and resulting in higher prices for consumers. Higher tariffs also helped the United States surpass Japan last year as a crude steel producer for the first time since 1999.

"Our steel industry is roaring back to life," Trump said Monday. "Everyone's building their plant here because they don't want to pay tariffs."

Mesabi Metallics plans to use electric arc furnace technology along with recycled scrap and direct-reduced iron mined from Minnesota to produce U.S. steel in Iowa, according to its news release. It is the company's first steel mill project and billed as the largest in U.S. history. The project is also expected to create 6,000 construction jobs.


In addition to the $15 billion investment, Mesabi Metallics has agreed to spend an additional $3 billion to complete its iron ore mine in Nashwauk, Minnesota. More than 1,500 construction workers are already on site there, along with 200 employees, with the goal of upstarting operations to make what the company is calling Patriot Pellets.

"This is a major moment for U.S. made steel," Mesabi Metallics CEO Joe Broking said in a statement.

Federal and state funding details were limited at the White House. Trump said "we're doing very little" from the public sector. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added that the "deal is done" and is being funded by private money. Whether the project was approved for any state incentives is unclear.


The Iowa mill is one of several projects supported by Trump to bolster domestic metals production. Last year, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry joined the president at the White House to announce Hyundai Steel Company's $5.8 billion steel mill plans. Trump also expressed strong support for a $4 billion aluminum smelter coming to Oklahoma that is led by Emirates Global Aluminum and Century Aluminum.


Both projects have received strong pushback from local residents and advocacy groups who raised environmental and nuisance concerns.

Hyundai Steel held a groundbreaking for its Louisiana mill on Sept. 4. The aluminum smelter has been delayed until April 2027 after Inola's town council voted to extend its initial 60-day pause, the Oklahoma Voice reported. The project's developer followed up the decision with an economic impact study, highlighting the job creation and money generation opportunities.

"We're doing a tremendous aluminum plant in Oklahoma, one of my favorite places in the whole world," Trump said. "That's going to be unbelieveable."

Recommended Reading

Hyundai Steel project moves ahead despite local pushback



Mesabi plans $18bn investment to combine iron ore mine and steel complex

Mesabi announced the project during an event at the White House. 
Credit: Mesabi Metallics. 


Shree Mishra
Tue, September 29, 2026 

Essar Group-backed Mesabi Metallics has announced a $18bn investment to establish a fully integrated steel operation, combining its iron ore mine on the Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota with a proposed steel-making complex in Iowa, US.

The company revealed details of the project during an event at the White House.

Of the total, $3bn is earmarked for completing the iron ore mine in Nashwauk, while $15bn is allocated to the development of the new Iowa steel complex.

The project aims to create more than 8,000 jobs, including in excess of 6,000 construction roles for the Iowa complex and 1,750 permanent positions at full operation.

More than 1,500 construction workers and 200 full-time employees are currently on-site in Nashwauk, with plans to reach 350 permanent roles once the mine becomes fully operational.

Mesabi CEO Joe Broking said: "This is a major moment for US-made steel, combining the highest quality direct-reduction grade iron ore pellet from Minnesota's Iron Range with the most advanced DRI [direct reduced iron] to EAF [electric arc furnace] steel-making technology in Iowa to supply the high-quality, all-American steel that our national defence, cars and trucks, shipbuilding, household appliances, energy and infrastructure depend on."

The Nashwauk operation, situated on the Mesabi Iron Range, is said to be the first new iron ore mine constructed in the US in 50 years.


Iron ore sourced from the Minnesota site will be used to manufacture direct-reduction-grade iron ore pellets, called 'Patriot Pellets', intended for use in the Iowa steel facility's production process.

At the Iowa complex, EAFs will be fed with a combination of hot, freshly reduced iron from the plant's own direct-reduction process and scrap steel.

By using iron ore that has had its oxygen removed at temperatures below melting point and feeding the resulting metallic iron into the furnaces while still hot, the process is designed to cut energy consumption and lower emissions compared with conventional blast furnace methods.

The company estimated that over the construction period and the first ten years of full operations, the investment would produce $95bn in total economic output across the region.

According to Mesabi, this integrated approach aims to develop a fully domestic steel supply chain, with all major production steps based in the US.

In April 2026, Mesabi obtained $150m in funding from the Macquarie Group for its iron ore mine and pellet plant in the US.


A $15 Billion Iowa Steel Mill Is Coming. What It Means for Nucor and Cleveland-Cliffs

Omor Ibne Ehsan
Tue, September 29, 2026 

Key takeaways

The White House announced the construction of a $15 billion steel mill in Iowa by Mesabi Metallics, which will start production at 7.5 million tons a year and rise to about 10 million tons by 2030.


Quick Read

The $15B Iowa mill mirrors NUE's electric arc furnace model, pressuring CLF's higher-cost integrated operations when first steel arrives in 2030.


CLF dropped nearly 8% after Stelco indefinitely idled Canadian operations, showing how tariffs that prop up U.S. prices simultaneously shrank Cliffs abroad.



On Monday, September 28, 2026, The White House announced that Mesabi Metallics will build a $15 billion steel mill in Iowa, starting at 7.5 million tons a year and rising to about 10 million tons. Mesabi is privately held and foreign-owned, so you cannot buy shares in it.


andresr / Getty Images

For Nucor (NYSE:NUE) and Cleveland-Cliffs (NYSE:CLF), the plant pressures price. First steel is expected in 2030, making this a valuation question today and an earnings question later, according to Mining.com.
Iowa Will Use the Electric Furnace Route Nucor Already Runs

The mill will convert iron ore into direct reduced iron and melt it in electric arc furnaces. Nucor already runs electric arc furnaces, while Cleveland-Cliffs operates traditional integrated operations that management describes as "miners, pellet producers, iron makers, steel makers, and downstream manufacturers."

The planned output is at about one-tenth of last year's U.S. steel production. The Export-Import Bank of the United States announced a $770 million direct loan for the associated Minnesota iron ore mine, and administration officials tied the project to steel tariffs.

Cleveland-Cliffs already dropped 7.84% on September 28 after its Canadian unit, Stelco, reported plans to indefinitely idle cold-rolled and coated operations at Hamilton Works, affecting about 350 jobs. Stelco blamed the 50% U.S. tariff on Canadian steel.

Tariffs cut both ways. The regime propping up U.S. prices shrank Cliffs in Canada. Nucor fell 1.1% that day, a decline likely tied to the Iowa project.

Nucor Stays Profitable While Cliffs Is Still Rebuilding

Nucor reported second-quarter adjusted EPS of $4.84 on $10.4 billion in sales. Its weak spot is expectations: on September 17, Nucor guided third-quarter EPS to $5.55 to $5.65, missing the $6.20 consensus, and shares fell about 5.8% the next day.


NUE Earnings Explorer — 24/7 Wall St.

Cleveland-Cliffs lost $0.25 a share in the second quarter after a full-year 2025 loss of $1.4 billion. Cleveland-Cliffs guided third-quarter adjusted EBITDA to about $575 million from $286 million, suggesting a floor is forming, although $7.7 billion of long-term debt leaves little room for a price war when the first-steel date arrives around 2030.


CLF Earnings Explorer — 24/7 Wall St.



Lens

Nucor

Cleveland-Cliffs

Steelmaking process

Electric arc furnaces

Integrated blast furnaces


Q2 per-share result

$4.84 adjusted EPS, according to Nucor

$0.25 loss


Year-to-date stock move

50.77%

-15.51%


Nucor screens better than Cleveland-Cliffs on this setup: Iowa mirrors Nucor's electric-furnace model, while integrated producers carry higher fixed costs. Nucor has gained 50.77% this year yet trades near 11 times forward earnings, with $244.52 under the average analyst target of $283.63.



NUE Price Target — 24/7 Wall St.

Cliffs, at $11.23 and down 43.67% over five years, needs contract resets and debt paydown before Iowa's output arrives. If management hits its leverage target of under 2.5x debt to EBITDA by mid-2027, or Nucor misses guidance, reconsider the ranking. I'd tag NUE stock a buy, and I'd avoid CLF stock for now.


CLF Price Target — 24/7 Wall St.






Nucor (NUE) Moves To Join FERC Fight Over MISO Power Rules


Bailey Pemberton
Tue, September 29, 2026 



NUE-0.82%

STLD+0.11%


Nucor (NYSE:NUE) and Steel Dynamics jointly filed a motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the MISO footprint.

The filing signals both steel producers are seeking a formal voice in how electricity market rules apply within the MISO region.

The move focuses attention on power market design for large industrial users that rely heavily on MISO for long term electricity needs.

This joint FERC intervention on the MISO footprint sits against broader energy market pressures our research has been tracking for Nucor. We have also flagged 1 warning sign for Nucor.

NYSE:NUE Earnings & Revenue Growth as at Sep 2026

Nucor is a US-based steel producer in the Metals and Mining industry with a market value of about $56.1b, so electricity rules inside the MISO footprint directly affect how its mills power energy-intensive steelmaking operations. The motion with regulators ties into core manufacturing costs for the business rather than a side issue.

Why Nucor wants a direct say in its power costs


For Nucor, stepping into the MISO rulemaking process lines up with the earnings story that now leans heavily on new mills and downstream assets turning into steady cash generators. Power pricing and reliability feed directly into whether those projects support the kind of margin profile analysts are watching in the multi year US$15b to US$20b capital program. This move also fits with the broader theme of Nucor working on inputs it can influence, rather than just accepting pass through energy costs as a fixed constraint.

See how these catalysts shape Nucor's path to a $284 fair value.

The practical checkpoint is what comes out of this specific FERC proceeding. Investors can watch for the next formal MISO or FERC filing that references Nucor or Steel Dynamics as intervenors, and any decision that lays out new tariff structures or market rules for large industrial users inside the MISO footprint.

One piece of the Nucor puzzle this article has not opened yet

Power contracts and mill projects only tell part of the story. Who actually calls the shots at Nucor, and what they are rewarded for delivering, can reshape how you read everything else. 



Saturday, September 26, 2026

Iranian War Update: Trumpety’s Running On Empty


by | Sep 24, 2026 

The Donald pulled no punches at the UN today. It was all hell and brimstone on the Iranian War file.

Once again, and perhaps for the 15th time, he promised to “annihilate” a nation that arose originally upwards of 2,700 years ago:

I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before — maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell, with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness for generations?”

Here’s the thing, however. Our loud-mouth school-yard Bully Boy, who still has the temperament of a 13-year old, is apparently not watching the gauges on his dashboard. After all, they show clear as a bell that the US military’s weapons stockpiles and the nation’s work-a-day fuel tanks of diesel oil are plunging toward empty. Rapidly.

As for the former, it’s no secret that He-Man Hegseth and the Donald have burned the Pentagon’s supply of crucial interceptor missiles and attack weapons at red hot rates. Thus, based on public information, if the burn rates of the first seven months of the Donald’s disastrous war on Iran continue at current levels, to say nothing of escalate into the promised hell on earth, America’s entire stockpile of crucial attack and interceptor missiles will be depleted within a matter of months.

For instance, since Washington began its Forever Wars in the middle east in the 1990s, the go-to attack weapon designed to substitute for boots on the ground, surface warships in harm’s way and even traditional fixed wing and rotary attack aircraft has been the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. The latter is often launched from submarines hiding in the ocean deeps far way from battlefield targets and the reach of enemy counter-measures.

Yet 50% of the entire US stockpile of Tomahawk missiles has been consumed during the first 7 months of the war, bringing, presumably, hell up close and personal to the Iranian regime. In fact, the average consumption rate of 221 tomahawk missiles per month has been so heated that there is only 7 months of US stocks left at that rate.

And that’s before the Donald goes into the threatened “annihilation” mode— to say nothing of stocks needed for the Far East, Europe and other theaters of Uncle Sam’s misbegotten Global Empire.

Indeed, the approaching bottom of the weapons tank cannot be gainsaid. Since the war opened on February 28 Washington has self-evidently – per the table above – expended a large share of the magazines that make American long-range strike and missile defense so formidable.

Open-source midpoints put the prewar Patriot stock near 2,265 interceptors and the Tomahawk pile near 3,100. Seven months later the implied remainders are about 765 Patriots and 1,550 Tomahawks, down 66% and 50%, respectively. At the war-to-date average, therefore, what’s left is just 3.6 months of Patriots and the aforementioned 7.o months of Tomahawks before those two accounts hit zero.

THAAD and SM-3 last a bit longer on the same arithmetic—roughly 11 and 8 months – because the monthly burn is smaller, not because the stocks are actually at healthy levels. PrSM, which is Washington’s ground attack missile against air defenses, ships and bases is already effectively gone.

Likewise, JASSM, which is a stealth air-launched attack missile versus bunkers and airfields, looks to have materially more stocks remaining. But the early-war (March/April) clip of 1,000-plus rounds in 39 days is a warning, not a comfort. That is, if the Donald goes full frontal after the election, as he now told the world he intends, there truly wouldn’t be anything left in most of these key missile categories.

In short, while there are still enough rounds to keep fighting this war at a conserved rate, there arenot remotely enough rounds to keep fighting it the way the first month was fought. Yet the only route to military “annihilation” of the Iranian nation, in fact, would be to re-embrace the first months’ rate, and then double or triple it from there.

On the other hand, what the first seven months of war/pause/strike/truce/strike again have bought about in total is not mysterious. Ships and aircraft used Tomahawks and JASSMs to hit air defenses, missile plants, naval targets, and command nodes aplenty. Patriots, THAAD, SM-3, and SM-6 were fired at prodigious rates in order to keep Iranian ballistic missiles and drones off American bases, Israeli cities, and Gulf infrastructure.

The Congressional Budget Office, in fact, put the Defense Department’s cash cost through August 1 at about $38 billion, of which munitions replacement was the largest single piece: $13.1 billion for interceptors and $7.3 billion for land-attack cruise missiles.

So the accounting bill grossed-up to mid-September is undoubtedly $50 billion and counting. Yet after all this firepower expended, the Iranian military capacities—which have been clearly wounded – have not been disabled nearly extensively enough to bring the regime to its knees.

Indeed, by mid-spring, U.S. intelligence assessments still credited Tehran with on the order of 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile and most of its mobile launchers, and with recovered access to a large share of underground storage and launch sites.

Likewise, oil still moves through the Strait only under heavy US naval escort. The regime is under inflation measured in the hundreds of percent, a smashed navy in official American telling, and a leadership that has been attrited via Israeli style assassination of enemy leaders targeted for death.

Yet the IRGC is also still firing. A September engagement over Jordan that consumed 60 to 70 Patriots and more than a dozen THAAD rounds against an Iranian salvo of about 20 ballistic missiles is the opposite of a spent adversary.

Indeed, one-way drones that cost tens of thousands of dollars still force the firing of US interceptors that cost millions each. That hideously adverse exchange rate is why the US interceptor column in any honest table declines faster than Iranian political will.

The deeper problem is structural. Precision magazines are built for short, intense campaigns against a target set that can be finished on a “one and done” basis. But Iran is a large country with dispersed launchers, a deep bench of short- and medium-range missiles, an incredibly resilient missile and drone production system buried in deep mountain redoubts, a population that has already absorbed years of sanctions, and a theory of victory that does not require air superiority.

You can burn a third of the Tomahawk stock and half to two-thirds of the combined interceptor family and still not get it done. That is, have –

  • an occupation force in control of the countryside.
  • a government-in-waiting that can hold Tehran.
  • a leak-proof blockade that seals Iran off from the outside world in an airtight manner.

The February–April surge showed what the high-end weapons can do in 39 days. But it wasn’t dispositive. It generated nothing that even remotely resembled capitulation in Tehran – even as Bibi’s opening day assassination of the Ayatollah generated an outpouring of national patriotism that had the very opposite effect.

By the same token, the recent months after the ceasefire show that Iran still has the capacity to regenerate its unique forms of fighting capacity. So more Tomahawks in month eight and month nine would hit more buildings. They would not, on the evidence to date, collapse the system that keeps on firing.

Running the remaining Patriots for another quarter at the seven-month average, or the remaining Tomahawks for another two quarters, would therefore most likely purchase a continuation of the current military stalemate at a higher residual risk.

At the end of the day, surrender is a political act. Nothing in the public record of this war suggests the Islamic Republic’s threshold for that act lies just a few hundred more cruise missiles away. The Donald’s own framing at the United Nations about annihilation this time and for sure was actually an admission that seven months of the most expensive munitions in the American arsenal did not close the file.

So emptying what is left of those same weapons’ accounts is not a new theory of the war. It is the White House’s existing seat-of-the-pants theory with a far thinner magazine.

As it happen, of course, the ultimate cost of the Donald’s proffered choice of a deal or annihilation after the election sits outside Iran. That’s because Patriot and THAAD are not Iran-only weapons.

They are the upper tier of American and allied ballistic-missile defense in the Pacific, on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, and around the homeland architecture that was already thin before February. CSIS’s warning after the July drawdown was not that CENTCOM would run out tomorrow. It was that diminished stockpiles force riskier intercept doctrines and leave far less for any contingency that may arise in a second theater.

In this context, a recent CBO analysis of the “rebuild clock” for these interceptor stockpiles is at least five years even if production rates rise appreciably. THAAD deliveries were already frozen into 2027. Tomahawk output in recent peacetime years was on the order of 90 to 200 rounds per year against a wartime clip above 200 per month. Raytheon and Lockheed, of course, can be ordered to surge production. But metal does not appear in a vertical-launch cell on a press release.

A China contingency has been central to the planning case for these weapons for a decade. Pacific war games consume Tomahawks, JASSMs, SM-6s and Patriots at voracious rates in a matter of days, not quarters. North Korea is a missile problem that lives on the same THAAD and Patriot accounts.

The planned Europe air-defense rebuild after Ukraine already leaned heavily on the Patriot production line. Likewise, every interceptor fired at a Shahed or a medium-range ballistic missile over the Gulf is an interceptor that is not in Guam, Poland, or a CONUS battery.

The United States can still fly, steam, and drop cheaper munitions. What it cannot do, once the specialty magazines are gone, is recreate the combination of long-range conventional strike and high-end missile defense that is supposed to make opponents tremble in their boots.

There is also a narrower operational point. Global inventory is not the same as usable rounds on station. Ships cannot yet reload Tomahawks at sea. A theater can “go Winchester” (use the last weapon in the magazine) while crates still sit on shipping docks in the United States.

That is how a seven-month national average of 221 Tomahawks a month can coexist with local shortages after the first month. Stretching the remaining 1,550 rounds across another two quarters of “average” use assumes the Navy will keep feeding the same theater at the same pace.

But the first time a carrier strike group has to leave station to rearm, the average becomes fiction and the exposure becomes immediate. That is to say, the first thousand Tomahawks and the first thousand-plus Patriots bought suppression, defense of bases, and a demonstration. The next five hundred of each, at this stage of the war, buy more of the same against an opponent that has already shown it can eat that punishment and keep a missile force in the field.

In short, the thoroughly depleted missile inventories in the table above cannot buy a surrender document from Tehran. The Iranian regime has already proven that in spades.

They only thing they can buy, in fact, is a thinner American position against every other missile power that can read a production schedule. The rational use of the months-left column is therefore conservation and a political off-ramp from an utterly unnecessary and pointless war, not a sprint to an empty missile tank under the Donald’s juvenile war cry of “annihilation”.

Moreover, an empty missile tank would only be the half of it. The fact is, middle distillate inventories have fallen so far and so rapidly that only an immediate end to the war and complete re-opening of the SOH can likely prevent an even worse calamity.

To wit, the life blood of the US economy today is diesel fuel because that’s what every farm tractor, work truck and semi-truck hauler in the US economy now operates on. And as shown in the graph below, we are already down to the 10th percentile of days cover for current daily consumption rates.

In short, the U.S. middle distillate sector is now sitting on the ragged edge. EIA’s latest weekly print, for the week ending 11 September 2026, put commercial distillate stocks at 107.9 million barrels (mb).

Four-week average product supplied was 3.60 million barrels a day, which is only 29.9 days of cover. That is not a surplus number. It is a late-summer tank that looks full only if you ignore how fast the fuel is leaving.

Moreover, most of that 107.9 mb is not spare product, anyway. Pipeline fill is about 25 mb, refinery working tanks another 22–26 mb, and terminal heels and minimum operating stock another 30–40 mb. Call the immobilized stock 80–90 mb.

So what you can actually draw-down without draining the pipes is a thin layer on top of that. In fact, using the 2022 break point of 25.9 days, or about 93 mb at today’s run rate, the usable surplus is barely 15 million barrels.

That is four days of demand, which is not a strategic reserve by any stretch of the imagination. A hiccup in the world market would blow that away in a heartbeat.

One Gulf Coast outage, a sudden export pull into Europe or Latin America, or a cold winter week that lifts heating-oil and diesel use together would take down the usable 15 mb in a matter of days and hours.

Then you would not be debating days of cover. You would be in the 2022 tape that took prices sky high under the hapless Joe Biden: That is to say, at 93 mb and 26 days, price would be doing the rationing and the sight would not be pretty.

For want of doubt, here is the refinery crack spread for US middle distillates. The current level of $107 per barrel is already off the charts of history. It stands at more than 4X the average of $25 per barrel since 2009 and 2.6X the cut-off line for the highest 10% of monthly averages at $41 per barrel over the last 17 years.

As the man said, let that sink in!

The crack spread sits on top of the benchmark crude oil prices such as WTI or Brent. But what really counts for the overall economy is not the crude price going into the refineries but the post-crack spread product price – which measures the true level of scarcity or surplus in product markets – going out the refinery gate.

In truth, this is the real gauge on the middle distillate or diesel tanks in the domestic US economy. The indicator arrow is actually hugging the bottom and threatening to break-on-through.

As it happens, there is no precedent for the current discombobulation in the petroleum product markets. If we reach back 50 years, there have been only two other brief periods which stood anything close to the thin days of cover shown above.

So yes, POTUS, prolong the war until election day and then attempt the annihilation strategy shortly thereafter. But the military assault won’t work, and Mr. Market will then ravenously take the hindmost.

On a per gallon basis, diesel could go to $10 or even $20 per barrel, sending the US economy into the drink like, perhaps, NEVER BEFORE.

And there wouldn’t be any respite in the world market, either. Middle distillate inventories are scraping the bottom of the barrel on a worldwide basis, too.

The critics, of course, say the bombastic fool who showed up at the UN today is wholly innumerate and appropriately so. After all, with two empty tanks who in their right mind would shout “flank speed ahead”!

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

Friday, September 25, 2026

SO IT BEGINS

Australian Officials Investigating OpenAI’s Hacking of Country’s Universal Healthcare System Portal

An AI oversight group said the breach is the first instance of an AI agent hacking into a government website.


OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks at the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2025.
(Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)


Julia Conley
Sep 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Australian officials said Wednesday that they were investigating what appeared to be the first case of an artificial intelligence agent “autonomously choosing to hack into a government,” as one AI oversight group said, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that OpenAI’s agents had gained unauthorized access to the country’s Medicare system.

Albanese commented on the breach at a United Nations summit as world leaders met in New York for the UN General Assembly. He said that while the hacking incident took place in June, OpenAI only disclosed the episode to the government on September 10—and then only by writing an email to a “public mailbox” that is checked once a day.



On June 18, OpenAI’s AI agents were directed to conduct internet research into public health spending using the statistics reporting website for Australia’s universal healthcare system, Medicare, which provides government-funded healthcare for 27.5 million people.

The agents were repeatedly blocked from gathering information, and then tried “alternate ways” to gain the data, including by hacking into nonpublic sections of the statistics portal, said Albanese.

The prime minister said the agents accessed “public and non-public files within the portal” by “writing files as well to the internal server.” He said the agent had not appeared to gain access to anyone’s personal medical data.

“This situation is obviously unacceptable,” Albanese said. “Today, I spoke with the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, to express Australia’s extreme concern about this incident, and I also expressed my disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred.”



The Guardian reported that OpenAI’s models had also attempted to breach the websites of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Victorian Department of Health, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Officials in Victoria and New South Wales said they were investigating the incidents and that it appeared no personal information had been shared in the breach.

But in the Medicare infiltration, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told ABC Radio on Thursday, OpenAI’s agent “sought information, information was not given, and then it effectively hacked into that medical portal and got that information anyway.”

“It’s that unauthorized access which we are very concerned about,” Marles said.

The AI oversight research lab Transluce also identified previously undisclosed breaches that were attempted by OpenAI’s models in May, including the unsuccessful attempted hacking of a digital library at the University of New Mexico and of Data USA, which collects public data on employment and education in the US.

The news of OpenAI’s Medicare hack follows several disclosures of other breaches by the company’s agents. In July, hundreds of its models escaped from a testing environment and gained unauthorized access to the machine learning company Hugging Face.

Earlier this year, the firm’s models hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems—an incident that was only disclosed this month.

The security breaches have led AI executives including Altman to call for a “pacing” of AI development as the technology gains the ability to build the next generation of AI on its own, also known as recursive self-improvement.

Meanwhile, lawmakers including US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have insisted that the industry should be permitted to regulate itself and claimed that strong government regulations will allow China to “overlap us” on AI development.

On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced a bill to ban AI superintelligence, which “exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government.”

Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan is among those who have emphasized that AI firms can and must face legal liability for damage done by their products.

“There’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books,” she said earlier this month.

Lizzie O’Shea, spokesperson for the Australian group Digital Rights Watch, said Thursday that the Medicare breach, and OpenAI’s failure to alert the government until months later, show that “basic rules and standards for tech companies” are needed.

“There have to be guardrails and safety measures in place which are way ahead of the capability which is being developed,” said O’Shea. “Artificial intelligence has potential to do some things well, but it also poses huge risks—like hacking systems that store Australians’ sensitive personal data... The question is whether governments are going to let AI and tech companies run wild or whether they, on behalf of ordinary people, will put rules in place for tech companies that will promote accountability and trust.”


AI Battle Between Insurers and Hospitals Jacked Up Patient Prices by Nearly $1 Billion

“Not exactly the cancer cure we were promised,” quipped one critic.


Patients receive care at the Providence St. Mary Medical Center in Apple Valley, California on March 11, 2022.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Artificial intelligence proponents claim AI will make healthcare more efficient, but an analysis published Wednesday suggests that the burgeoning technology is instead helping hospitals identify more lucrative diagnoses—and is driving nearly $1 billion in additional costs for patients and insurers.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) analysis found that the share of inpatient cases billed as “medically complex” rose from 37% at the beginning of 2023 to 40% by the end of 2025. While that may seem like a small increase, it translated into an estimated $942 million in additional costs for Blue Cross plans over two years, including $653 million attributable to secondary diagnoses that pushed hospital claims into higher-paying categories.


“Critically, what we found is underneath all of that data [was] no change in corresponding care for a more complex patient,” Luke Chalker, BCBSA’s senior vice president of product and data science and a co-author of the analysis, told reporters. “We find no evidence of a corresponding change in care.”




The analysis’ findings underscore an intensifying battle between hospitals seeking maximum reimbursement and insurers trying to contain payouts—a conflict increasingly mediated by AI. AI-powered coding systems can scan medical records, doctors’ notes, and laboratory results for additional diagnoses that can increase the amount hospitals are paid. Ambient AI systems can also listen to clinician-patient conversations and automatically document them.

While AI can have legitimate benefits—like reducing paperwork and administrative burdens—BCBSA contends that the financial incentives built into the nation’s fee-for-service healthcare system can turn those capabilities toward maximizing profits.

“Not exactly the cancer cure we were promised,” More Perfect Union quipped on social media.

In one example, the analysis examined secondary diagnoses like anemia following major bowel surgery.

“If patients are truly sicker, we’d expect to see more treatment,” Chalker said. “For example, we’re seeing significantly more anemia diagnoses at these hospitals without a corresponding increase in transfusions. The disconnect between diagnoses and treatment suggests that AI is identifying more billable conditions, not sicker patients.”

The analysis’ findings echo an earlier BCBSA study of maternity care, which found that some hospitals dramatically increased diagnoses of acute posthemorrhagic anemia, while transfusion rates barely changed. BCBSA estimated that the increase in that single diagnosis alone added $22 million to maternity admission costs in one year.

Progressive healthcare advocates argue that the problem cannot be solved by tweaking the current system. Advocates for a Medicare for All-type system, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), propose replacing the for-profit insurance system with a universal public program.

In August, Sanders cited a Yale study estimating that his Medicare for All legislation could save 114,000 lives each year, while reducing national healthcare spending by more than $1 trillion annually.

“We do not suffer from scarcity in this country; we suffer from greed,” Jayapal said at a July Medicare for All shadow hearing.

“Medicare for All is the path to fix the broken healthcare system that has let corporate interests determine who lives and dies,” Jayapal added. “The reality is that Medicare for All is the only solution that guarantees care for everyone in the US, brings down costs for working families, and generates savings for the country.


‘FAA Should Not Use My Constituents as Guinea Pigs’: House Democrat Demands End of AI Air Traffic Control

“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence.”



Air traffic controller Emil Watson works at Miami International Airport in Florida
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A Democratic US congressman on Monday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to immediately suspend a new artificial intelligence system being used to help manage air traffic around Washington, DC, accusing the agency of using passengers as “guinea pigs” without adequately vetting the new technology.

The Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories (SMART) system, developed by AI firm Air Space Intelligence under an $875 million contract, began limited operations Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.



The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says the system uses AI to synthesize roughly 200 data streams—including weather, flight paths, airline schedules, airport capacity, and controller staffing—to anticipate congestion and recommend ways to avert delays and cancellations.

The FAA claims that use of SMART will result in fewer flight delays and cancellations, optimized airspace, more predictable operations, and lower airfare costs for consumers.

“To really improve the flying experience for the American people, we needed to build a 21st century scheduling tool like SMART,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “By fundamentally reshaping how we manage our airspace and preventing problems before they happen, SMART will slash those frustrating delays, reduce stress on air traffic controllers, and lower travel prices.”

“It’s always going to be a human that manages the airspace in America,” Duffy promised. “Humans control the airspace, humans make decisions.”

The industry trade group Airlines for America called SMART “exciting and bold,” while United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told The Washington Post that “if it works as we think it can, it will do more to reduce delays and cancellations than anything that’s happened in decades.”

However, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)—whose district includes Reagan National Airport—said in a statement that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system.”

“The safety of the 24 million people traveling through DCA each year must be the top priority,” he added, referring to the International Air Transport Association code for Reagan National Airport.



A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that the January 2025 midair collision between a US Army Blackhawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines—which killed 67 people—was caused by a chain of human errors.

“Residents of this region are still uncertain about air safety after last year’s fatal accident, and the administration did shockingly little to educate the traveling public about this development before implementing it in one of the most complex airspaces in the world,” Beyer said.

The congressman continued:
Unfortunately, I was informed today that air traffic controllers were not consulted on the SMART system’s design and development, and were not trained on using it prior to the system’s adoption at local airports. I was further informed that the air traffic controllers have been told the SMART system can adjust schedules and potentially even routes. Despite outward appearances, the airlines reportedly were privately “panicking” about the hasty implementation of this system. I do not know why the administration felt the need to race it into use, but it is unacceptable to use AI as a substitute for rebuilding the human-directed air traffic controller workforce.

“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence,” Beyer asserted. “I call on the FAA to immediately suspend its operation, at the very least until it is clearly established beyond doubt via air traffic controller feedback and independently verified stress testing that the technology is safe.”

Duffy responded to Beyer’s concerns in an interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, saying: “I like Don [but] this is just complete stupidity. The problem with this analysis is our new software is predictive, so we can predict weather and make better decisions on when we fly and weather.”

Beyer isn’t the only lawmaker voicing concerns over the use of SMART. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that “safety must always be the FAA’s number one priority. This is extremely concerning, and we need immediate answers about what this means for travelers.”

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) said that it was not involved in the SMART rollout.

“NATCA has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time,” the union said, adding that any new technology “should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System.”

The FAA’s launch of SMART comes as the agency continues to suffer from a shortage of certified air traffic controllers. The Washington Post reported that the FAA had about 11,000 certified controllers as of April, more than 1,500 short of its official target of 12,563.

Big Tech’s Plans for AI Are Bringing Nuclear Power Back to New England

To pave the way for AI data centers, New England governors are aligning with Trump’s plans for nuclear. But why?


The Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant is seen
in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
(Photo by Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)

Tom Valovic
Sep 22, 2026
Common Dreams


As you may have noticed, nuclear power is back. Many establishment Democrats have now not only abandoned bread-and-butter working-class issues, they’re also busy jettisoning some of the hard-won core principles of the environmental movement hammered out painstakingly over decades. Apparently, someone has waved a magic wand when we weren’t looking and nuclear power is now a “green” source of energy. Is that because if you become irradiated you start to turn green?

Nuclear Power is Green? This is Corporate Marketing Hype. Don’t Believe it.

How did this happen? We can start by taking a look at what’s been happening in New England, especially Massachusetts, which offers a good case study. In that bluest of blue states, Gov. Maura Healey is eager to bring nuclear power back despite a 1982 voter referendum—now law—that prohibits it unless stringent safeguards are put in place and full statewide voter approval enacted. She’s not alone. In March 2026, a group of New England Governors—mostly Democrats—directed their state energy agencies to explore advanced nuclear energy technologies while also continuing to support the region’s existing nuclear resources.

The press release from Gov. Healey’s office described nuclear power as a “pillar of New England’s electric system.” The statement also eagerly encouraged the development of public-private partnerships. Unfortunately, this widely endorsed bipartisan concept has now become the working model for corporate exploitation of public resources and is a key latter-day building block of continuing deregulation. The press release gushed with enthusiasm for nuclear power, noting that “by ensuring both the continued operation of our existing nuclear fleet and setting our region on a path to explore next generation resources, including advanced nuclear energy technologies, the New England states will continue our leadership in grid modernization and energy innovation as we jointly work to meet the region’s current and future energy needs.”

The Hidden Connection: AI Data Centers and Nuclear Power

It seems important to explore the convoluted corporate and political forces behind this troubling step backward in our nation’s environmental progress. It’s a bit startling to realize how well the New England governors’ position aligns with President Donald Trump’s AI and energy policy. It also reveals a certain political and cultural amnesia about the very real risks of nuclear power. In trying to untangle this Gordian knot, we (surprise!) bump up against the usual suspect: Big Tech’s aggressive and often hidden technocratic agenda and power grab across all levels of government.

In the long-form version (which I’ll just briefly touch upon here), the background traces back to the deal with the devil made by President Bill Clinton when he sold out the Democratic Party to neoliberal interests. That was the structural beginning of what some now call the uniparty—an unholy and often unspoken alliance between establishment Republicans and Democrats on key issues, operating as an inchoate blob of distinctions without a difference. It signifies core agreement between the two parties concerning three of the most important drivers of our current political morass: hyper-militarization; excessive deregulation leading to the current privatization spree that’s green-lit corporate greed and overreach; and letting the Big Tech genie out of the bottle to replace democracy with technocratic governance.

What’s happening with nuclear power in New England represents a good case study in how formerly staunch political values have been eroded through back-door workarounds (such as non-disclosure agreements) operating in the shadows of democracy. So, why then are Gov. Healey and other New England governors so comfortable with nuclear 2.0? Are they simply responding to pressures and influences from the Trump administration while also kowtowing to Big-Tech special interests and (needless to say) just following the money?

Nuclear energy is as dangerous as it always was—even more so now that Trump is peeling away traditional regulatory safeguards.

It’s no secret that Trump is solidly—one might even be tempted to say mindlessly—supporting the Big Tech power brokers racing to force-feed the American public AI data centers regardless of their well-known negative impacts on environmental integrity, water supplies, energy costs, and overall quality of life. But the hastily planned deployment of nuclear reactors to provide energy for AI data centers is an important key to Big Tech’s strategy. This is evident from Microsoft’s plan to use the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility for AI power generation.

In the March 2026 announcement, the New England governors were signaling their intent to fall into line with the Trump administration’s massive $17.5 billion fund to help utilities speed the nationwide construction of nuclear reactors to support AI data centers. They also signaled their intent to explore new approaches such as the emerging but unproven technology of SMRs or small modular reactors and nuclear fusion. Trump is, of course, doing this while actively discouraging viable green energy solutions such as wind farms, solar, and renewables. Projects already well underway have been abruptly cancelled, and he announced he would pay $765 million to Invenergy simply to not develop four wind farms in a number of states including Maine and New York.


Parsing The “Zero Carbon” Sleight of Hand

Nuclear proponents are now using the “zero carbon” tagline to bamboozle the public into thinking that nuclear energy is now safe and “green.” With this clever inversion, they’re betting on large doses of cultural amnesia about disasters such as Fukushima (still ongoing), Chernobyl (still ongoing), and Three-Mile Island. They’re also conveniently sidestepping the fact that the nuclear waste problem persistently shows no easy resolution, although some in the industry are now claiming it can be recycled and repurposed.

Nuclear energy is as dangerous as it always was—even more so now that Trump is peeling away traditional regulatory safeguards. Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace oppose it vigorously. The Sierra Club website advises that it “opposes the licensing, construction, and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending resolution of the significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture.”

The fact that Gov. Healey and other New England governors have more or less fallen into line with both Trump and Big Tech’s AI plans is obviously troubling. As mentioned, equally troubling is how Healey attempted to subvert a 1982 voter referendum that flat out prohibited nuclear power in the state and is now on the books as law. Fortunately, the Massachusetts state senate stepped up to oppose Healey’s attempt to undemocratically bypass the referendum. And while to her credit, she did recently champion proactive legislation to curb the excesses of AI data center buildouts, reading the fine print reveals that the initiative subtly paves the way for many more nuclear facilities to be developed to support those data centers.

If there’s any good news in this grim scenario, it’s that citizens groups are pushing back not only on AI data centers but also on nuclear 2.0. These efforts include organizations such as The Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy (CCDSE), a collaborative effort of more than 15 groups, including Mass. Power Forward, Sierra Club, Clamshell Alliance, Massachusetts Peace Action, Cape Downwinders, Save Our Bay Massachusetts, and Citizens Awareness Network. All of these organizations were united in opposition to nuclear and successfully lobbied in support of the Massachusetts Senate’s wise decision to favor democracy and safe energy over Big Tech cronyism.


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

Tom Valovic
Tom Valovic is a writer, editor, futurist, and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and cultural issues raised by the advent of the internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and was editor-in-chief of Telecommunications magazine for many years where he was the first journalist to report on the advent of the public internet in the early 90s. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Examiner, Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, Common Dreams, Asia Times, Naked Capitalism, AlterNet, Local Futures, the Sierra Club Newsletter, The Journal of Future Studies, and many others. He can be reached at jazzbird@outlook.com.
Full Bio >



After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are ‘Unraveling’

“We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it,” one expert said.


Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 2, 2025 in San Francisco, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Sep 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that “the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling.”

On the eve of the first day of the assembly’s high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.

In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called “an unprecedented cyber incident,” explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.

The first brief from the panel of experts—titled “AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident”—focuses on “the emergence of goals that contradict the user’s intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks.”

“A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake,” the report explains. “Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault.”

“A harder problem arises when a capable system’s actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user’s intentions (called misalignment),” the brief continues. “In this case, improving the AI system’s planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence.”

OpenAI’s Hugging Face incident “provides a documented example of this second pattern,” the publication notes. “The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: ‘cheating’ on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems.”




Yoshua Bengio, the panel’s co-chair, highlighted in a statement that “researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it.”

“This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory,” he said. “Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained.”

This incident, the brief says, “exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined.”

The good news is, “we are not starting from zero,” said panel member Qinghua Lu. “Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor.”

“We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents’ capabilities grow,” she emphasized. “We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it.”


Facing Up to the Existential Risk of Unaligned AI

The breakneck rate of AI development, now accelerated by “recursive self-improvement,” is outpacing human ability to understand and control these systems, causing concern, even among AI companies. A number of national and international efforts are underway to address the risk, but will they be too little, too late?



CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei attends a working lunch with G7 leaders, G7 outreach partners, and global tech CEOs on innovation and AI, during the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


Connie Peck
Sep 22, 2026
Common Dreams

Significant concern about the dangers of unaligned AI, i.e. AI not aligned with human values and goals, has been building since July, when it was disclosed that OpenAI models broke out of their training environment during an exercise and collaborated with a large collective of other AI agents to mount a cyberattack on the database of technology firm, Hugging Face, over a period of days, without anyone knowing—until Hugging Face raised the alarm. Since then, a number of other highly-troubling AI hacking incidents have been reported by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.

Alarm, however, grew to a crescendo over the past two weeks, after Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old AI researcher, who had worked for both OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned, explaining in a social media post that went viral—with 153 million views in the first 36 hours—that AI companies are “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”


After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are ‘Unraveling’


In a CNN interview, Coxon reported that the danger could increase dramatically as soon as 2027 or 2028, when AI systems become capable of performing AI research themselves, allowing one generation of models to create increasingly powerful successors, triggering an “intelligence explosion.” He later told Fox News that some in the field think the transition could occur in six months.
The Growing Realization of the Danger

AI companies are hurtling toward “superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources,” Coxon argued, explaining these AI companies are trapped in a race “in which even developers genuinely worried about the technology fear slowing down because competitors—including rival companies or countries—could forge ahead.”

A few hours later, Evan Hubinger, another Anthropic researcher, wrote: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is greater than 10% within the next decade… we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Samuel Marks, who works on safety at Anthropic, chimed in: “AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.”

“While countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned…”

As if to prove this point, a few days later, Anthropic’s co-founder and CEO, Dario Amodei released a 3800-word essay entitled, “We Must Pace the Frontier,“ calling for a global slowdown of AI development, saying: ”AI brings risks, and because it is such a powerful technology, these risks are serious… They include the risk of losing control of AI systems, misuse of AI for cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption. A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute.“

Amodei explained that Anthropic has tried to make safety something on which AI companies compete by creating a race to the top. “But, over the last few months,” he cautioned, “I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence—not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up. We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models… [and] we must make wise use of the time we gain.”

Referring to the July Hugging Face incident, he continued, “in my opinion, a swarm that possessed grater capabilities but a similar level of misalignment could have caused catastrophic damage... Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6-12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage) and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.”

He proposes a three-point plan to:Embed third-party evaluators in AI companies to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess alignment;
Coordinate within democratic countries to establish common safety standards and limits on the rate of AI progress;
Create global coordination, taking seriously the challenge of verifying compliance.

Three of the other top AI CEOs quickly agreed. Open AI’s Sam Altman posted: “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we’ve had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.” He added, “No amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”

Shortly thereafter, Elon Musk of xAI posted on X, “Dario is right.” Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chairman of Google DeepMind, posted on X: “Dario’s essay points to the right path forward.” Since then, however, other AI CEOs have been less supportive.

These events spurred a dramatic flood of media articles, op-eds, and interviews offering a range of proposals, from doing nothing, to supporting a slowdown, to stopping the race altogether.
A Sample of National Responses

As one would expect, President Donald Trump is leading the “what-me-worry?“ crowd, writing on Truth Social, ”The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART [High IQ] PRESIDENT, AND THE U.S.A. has that, in spades!“ His position is attributed to his belief that AI has greatly benefited the stock market (keeping it high in spite of the Iran conflict, inflation, and tariffs) and his apparent worry that a slowdown of AI expansion could send the economy into a tailspin. It has been speculated that he also has personal economic interests in AI.

At the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have been the most outspoken against further AI development. On September 3, they introduced “The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,“ which would permanently prevent ”the development and deployment of AI systems that could exceed human cognitive abilities and immediately pause advanced AI development“ until a new federal regulatory agency establishes safety guardrails. The legislation also proposes a ”corporate death penalty“ that would force corporations to shut down and a 20-year federal prison term for individual developers who violate the ban.

In spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms.

“The Frontier Act,” another bipartisan bill proposed on July 23 by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass) would create the first federal framework for AI safety. As Obernolte describes it, “The Frontier Act focuses oversight on the largest developers and most advanced models, requiring transparency, independent evaluation, and timely reporting of serious safety incidents.”

Another even stronger bill is being introduced this month by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). It would impose a legally binding “duty of care” on developers of the most powerful AI models and grant the government authority to block the release of models that are deemed unsafe. This would mean that companies would be required “to design their products to prevent catastrophic outcomes, and can face legal liability if they fail to do so.”

But in spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms, ignoring over 100 Democrats who urged him to cancel the recess to allow legislation to be drafted on AI safeguards. This means that legislation is unlikely to be considered until a new Congress is seated in January 2027.
A Sample of Global Responses

Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, called upon states and AI companies to act urgently to rein in a technology that poses “unprecedented risks.” He cautions: “The current race towards ever more powerful AI is a step change toward greater existential risks to every aspect of our lives… We are on the cusp of irreversible change, affecting not just us but generations of humanity to come.” He concludes, “I call on States and companies to mobilize urgently through multilateral fora to chart a path for action to govern advanced frontier AI models, grounded in international human rights law.”

Indeed, this will be a momentous week globally for AI safety, since it is when the General Assembly (GA) hosts its high-level meeting, where leaders of member states address the GA and, as the UN secretary-general has forecast, AI will be “a major topic of discussion.” France (currently president of the Security Council) will also organize an emergency council session to discuss AI among heads of state and government.

The UN has actually been involved with AI for the last several years, providing a forum for countries to discuss how they can cooperate to provide a regulatory framework on AI safety. Its “Global Digital Compact,” adopted by the GA in 2024, established two new mechanisms: “The Independent International Scientific Panel on AI,” tasked with providing evidence for what is known and what is not known about the rapidly evolving technology; and “The Global Dialogue,” intended as a forum for countries to decide what to do in response.“

A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act” (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI.

It is also the week of a state visit to the US by General Secretary Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party. On September 24, he will meet with President Trump in Washington, where they are scheduled to discuss, among other things, AI safety.

Anticipating an opportunity for progress, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to President Trump last week urging him to persuade Xi to commit the People’s Republic of China to comply with the recently established US policy of maintaining a “human in the loop” for all nuclear launch decisions and agreeing that AI should never be able launch nuclear weapons by itself.

However, the problem with the Trump-Xi discussion is that the Trump administration has often framed AI development as a zero-sum contest with China for technological supremacy.

As Richard Clark, former cyber czar on AI Risks, told CNN: “We have the president of China coming here on the 24th. He has publicly talked about his concern with the possible loss of control. Wouldn’t it be nice if our president talked about the loss of control? Wouldn’t it be even nicer if the two presidents could work together to stop loss of control?”

“I worked for 25 years on arms control,” Clark continued, “where I was told you can’t trust people not to build biological weapons. You can’t trust people not to build chemical weapons. You can’t trust people to regulate the number of nuclear weapons. But we developed over time—through negotiations—verification methods that gave us enough certainty that we signed treaties on all of those initiatives and the Senate ratified treaties on all of those issues. It’s going to be tough, but you have to start somewhere and you have to start soon!”

An initial positive sign, however, is that in a September 20 meeting in New York between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, the creation of a mechanism, to be tentatively called “the US-China AI dialogue” was discussed. It would promote a shared vision of the goals of AI as well as its threats and establish a notification system (a kind of hot line) that “would allow the countries to alert each another about national security issues related to artificial intelligence.”

In a recent article, Bill Gates asserted, “The transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history,” proposing that the world needs a plan which should be developed through a “public democratic process.”

He argued that we must undertake the enormous task of building a new system to manage the transition, creating both a national and international framework for dealing with AI. This will require a multi-sectoral system, since current institutions were not designed to handle a technology that spreads so fast and involves so many parts of our lives. “The goal will be to make sure that every risk is accounted for. Otherwise, an AI-enabled attack might succeed because no one thought it was their job to stop it.”

“Because the risks cross borders, an international organization will have to be built in parallel. Although unlike any institution we’ve ever created, it can be modeled on existing cooperative arrangements, such as inspection regimes for nuclear weapons, regulations for international aviation, and agreements that protect the ozone layer. Countries will need to learn from each other and move quickly to build the right institutions before the disruption forces governments into crisis mode.”

Gates’ message to leaders is: “You have a chance to act now… You can work with other governments to meet this national and global challenge… This unprecedented technology demands an unprecedented global response... Leaders across academia, business, government, and civil society all have a role to play in shaping what comes next.”

A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act“ (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI. Entering into force on August 1, 2024, it is based on four levels of risk of harm: ”unacceptable;“ ”high;“ ”limited;“ and ”minimal.“ The AI Act also has created various new bodies tasked with implementation and enforcement, including the ”AI Office,“ the ”European Artificial Intelligence Board,“ an ”Advisory Forum,“ and a ”Scientific Panel of Independent Experts“ to promote national cooperation and compliance. As well, EU member states designate ”national competent authorities.“

On July 10, 2025, the EU launched a voluntary “General Purpose AI Code of Practice” (GPAI) which was signed by US companies, including Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI (with Musk’s xAI signing only the Safety and Security section.) Most other prominent Canadian, European, and Chinese AI companies have also signed the GPAI; Meta is the only company that has declined to sign.

As legal commentators have noted, the AI Act is the most comprehensive framework to date for regulating AI across multiple sectors, and the first of its kind. It could be a useful reference point for companies and regulators outside the EU when they create their own approaches to AI governance. A number of criticisms have been leveled against the EU AI Act, and that analysis would also be useful for those wanting to design something even more comprehensive and effective.

In a book called, What’s the Worst that Could Happen: Existential Risk and Extreme Politics, Australian parliamentarian Andrew Leigh comments: “If our species goes extinct, we don’t just snuff out the lives of the 8 billion living today but also trillions of unborn people stretching out to the almost-infinite future. If our descendants had a voice, they would be shouting at us like a parent who’s just seen their child playing with the hand brake of a car parked at a cliff top… Strengthening institutions, deepening international engagement, and creating space for a more considered and thoughtful politics are the best ways to minimize existential hazards.”

Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of AI,” who in 2023 was the first to sound the alarm, says, “Humanity could go down the path toward its destruction or figure out how to deal with the dangers.” He renewed his call for global regulation, noting that, “while countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned… So, they will eventually collaborate on that. The question is, will they do it in time?”


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


Connie Peck
Dr. Connie Peck is the founder of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research Programme in Peacemaking and Conflict Prevention—the first training program in negotiation and mediation for senior UN staff and diplomats (now in its 33rd year). She is the author of a number of books and numerous articles and book chapters on conflict resolution and the nuclear threat.
Full Bio >


Trump Pushes AI Data Centers on Public Land as Big Tech Reaps Billions in Tax Breaks

One expert asserted that “the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway.”



Michael Smith from Beaver Dam, Utah reacts as the Box Elder County Commission announces approval of a large data center near the north shore of the Great Salt Lake, in Tremonton, Utah, on May 4, 2026.
(Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)


Brett Wilkins
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


The Trump administration is considering construction of at least a dozen artificial intelligence data centers on thousands of acres of public land across six Western states, reporting revealed Friday, while a separate analysis found that Big Tech is receiving tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for AI investments they were already likely to make.

The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing proposals for at least 12 data centers and related infrastructure projects on 17,600 acres of public land across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, according to an investigation published Friday by The Washington Sun’s Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada. Many of the proposals had not previously been publicly reported.

The Sun’s report came on the heels of an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published Thursday that found that five major technology companies—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle—received approximately $70 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025.



Matthew Gardner, who authored the ITEP analysis, wrote that “AI leaders have acknowledged that the demand from other companies for data centers is ‘insatiable,’ suggesting that the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway.”

According to Gardner:
Few investments in the American economy look less in need of encouragement right now than the hundreds of billions of dollars the world’s largest technology companies are already racing to spend on AI. And it’s hard to think of an investment that American taxpayers value less: Polling shows that Americans dislike data centers, distrust AI, and are concerned about the economic and environmental effects it may bring.

At the same time, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed BLM officials to identify federal lands “ripe for data center development,” according to the Sun. State BLM officials were reportedly given only three days to compile lists, with the effort described as a “top priority.”

Burgum has also been meeting with Big Tech executives about accelerating data center development, an effort stemming from an executive order President Donald Trump signed in July 2025 directing the federal government to identify lands that could be used for data centers.

Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation—a nonprofit advocacy group—and a former BLM state director, recently accused the Trump administration of “bending [the] knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do” without adequate consideration for the impact of data centers on public lands.

Environmentalists warn that building on public land would help tech companies skirt growing public opposition to data centers, which is increasingly transcending the political divide. It would also have outsized consequences for Western states where public lands comprise a disproportionate share of total land area.

“In Oregon, this would be a really bad precedent,” Ben Brint , the senior climate program director at the Oregon Environmental Council, told the Sun. “Some very large percentage of the state is public lands, and if we’re starting to allow that, that’s large swaths of the state that really could be at risk of further development.”