The Movement Continues for a Nuclear-Free World

As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago, we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons.


Ann Wright attends the 2025 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs on August 3, 2025.
(Photo: Ann Wright)

Ann Wright
Aug 06, 2025

Common Dreams

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the 2025 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.

I bring you greetings and solidarity from civil society movements in the U.S. who have been working diligently for a nuclear-free world against a U.S. government that is intent on spending huge amounts of money on “modernizing” its nuclear weapons.

As this is the commemoration of horrific deaths and wounding of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago in 1945, as an American citizen, I offer my profound apologies to the families of those killed in Japan—Japanese, Koreans, and other nationalities including the U.S. prisoners of war who were there. And to Marshallese and U.S. “downwinders” who suffered from U.S. testing of atomic and nuclear weapons, for the criminal actions of my government in using these weapons of mass destruction. I also apologize to the Vietnamese delegation at the conference for the U.S. dropping millions of gallons of Agent Orange and leaving tons of unexploded ordnance in Vietnam.

The knowledge that the horrific weapons would be used to kill and maim innocent civilians as a strategy to end the war was brutal, reckless, and without any sense of humanity.

80 years later, we are battling our governments as they continue to spend trillions of dollars to “improve, upgrade, modernize” these weapons.

80 years later, we now know the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the testing of these terrible weapons in Nevada in the United States, the Marshall Islands, the Russian Federation, Mururoa, French Polynesia, Australia, and Algeria have resulted in the legacy of genetic medical conditions for the generations that have followed those who were initially exposed to the radiation emanating from the testing of nuclear bombs.

Most of the test sites were on the lands of Indigenous peoples and far from the capitals of the testing governments. Large swathes of land remain radioactive and unsafe for habitation, even decades after test sites were closed.
Slow Ratification of the TPNW

And yet, 80 years later, we are battling our governments as they continue to spend trillions of dollars to “improve, upgrade, modernize” these weapons that have now been banned by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which opened for signature at the United Nations on September 20, 2017 and entered into force on January 22, 2021.

We know the statistics. By the end of 2024, a total of 94 nations have signed the TPNW, but only 73 have signed and ratified the treaty. There are currently 21 signatory countries that have signed but NOT ratified the TPNW, countries in which their citizens must put pressure on their governments.

Citizen pressure must be put on the 44 nations that, incredibly, OPPOSE the treaty including the nine nuclear weapons countries: the U.S., Russian Federation, France, United Kingdom, China, India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Fifteen other nations are undecided on whether to accept or reject the treaty.
U.S. States and Cities Say No to Nuclear Weapons

The state legislatures of 5 out of 50 states in the United States—California, Oregon, New Jersey, Maine, and Rhode Island—have passed resolutions in support of the TPNW. Five large counties in the U.S. have passed resolutions in support of the TPNW, including the city and county where I live, Honolulu, Hawaii, as well as the city and county of San Francisco, and two counties in Maryland next to Washington, D.C.

Dozens of cities across the country, including Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., have also appealed to the U.S. government to sign and ratify the TPNW. In 2021, New York City resolved to pursue the divestment of public funds from nuclear weapons makers in response to the TPNW’s entry into force.
Japanese-American Rep. Jill Tokuda Cosponsors Stop the Nuclear Arms Race Resolution

In 2025, in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) introduced House Resolution 317 “Urging the United States to lead the world back from the brink of nuclear war and halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.”

Unfortunately, the resolution has only 28 sponsors or cosponsors out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, all from the Democratic Party, none from the Republican Party, meaning we have much work to do in the U.S. Congress.

About House Resolution 317, Jill Tokuda, my congressional representative in Hawaii who is a cosponsor of the resolution and who is Japanese American, one of only four Japanese Americans in the U.S. Congress, stated:
As a Japanese American, my heritage is deeply tied to the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and the atrocities of war. This resolution is about our moral imperative to achieve nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It is not only a call for peace, but a commitment to ensuring that such tragedies are never repeated. This resolution represents a vital step toward a safer, more just world.

The resolution urges the United States to:Engage in good-faith negotiations with all nuclear-armed states to halt the buildup of nuclear arsenals and pursue verifiable, time-bound reductions;
Conclude new arms control agreements with Russia and engage China on nuclear risk reduction;
Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first;
End the Cold War-era “hair trigger alert” posture;
Rein in the production of new nuclear warheads and delivery systems;
Preserve the moratorium on nuclear testing;
Protect radiation-impacted communities and workers through full remediation, compensation, and expanded healthcare, including an expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA); and
Plan a just economic transition for workers and communities dependent on the nuclear weapons industry.
U.S. Organizations Sending Greetings

There are a multitude of organizations in the United States and around the world that are working for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

They send their greetings to colleagues here in Japan and around the world as they continue their work in the U.S. Congress, in the states and cities and counties of the United States.

From June 8-11, 2025, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s (ANA) held its 38th annual D.C. Days to advocate in the U.S. Congress for safer nuclear weapons and waste policies.

ANA includes 30 organizations concerned with the local and national consequences of nuclear weapons and waste policy decisions. During the week of advocacy in the U.S. Congress, meetings were held with 80 members of Congress or their staff.

Referencing the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating waste in the federal government through the draconian measures taken by the Department of Government Efficiency, ANA published a new resource, “What about WASTE? 80 Years of Nuclear Waste” as a part of this year’s effort in the U.S. Congress.

The Nevada Desert Experience continues its annual spring Sacred Peace Walk from the Atomic Tests Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada, 60 miles out to the Nuclear Test site on Western Shoshone land. The site was the primary testing location of American nuclear devices from 1951 to 1992. Around 928 announced nuclear tests occurred there; 828 tests were underground and 100 were atmospheric tests.

In another initiative for public awareness of the bloated U.S. military budget and nuclear weapons program, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream in June 2025 initiated a $2.3 million, 2-year advocacy project called “Up in Arms.” The campaign is to reduce U.S. military spending, particularly on nuclear weapons; to make cutting the Pentagon budget a debate in the 2026 elections; and to bring a national focus onto nuclear dangers and the necessity of disarmament.

The International People’s Tribunal on the 1945 U.S. Atomic Bombings continues to bring international attention, and hopefully justice, to the Japanese and Korean victims and survivors of the effects of the horrific U.S. atomic bombs used in 1945.

The Lakenheath Peace Camp held in May 2025 at the U.S. Air Base in Lakenheath, U.K. focused on stopping nuclear weapons being sent again by the U.S. to be housed on U.K. soil.

NO to NATO events were held in June in The Hague, Netherlands to protest the 5% increase for NATO countries in national spending for military at the expense of social programs for the people and to alert the world to the dangers of the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.

The International Peace Forum in Brussels, Belgium also in June 2025 focused on the increased militarization in Europe and the necessity of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The annual STOPP RAMSTEIN camp and demonstration, held in June at the largest U.S. air base in Europe, underscored the need to challenge the continuing U.S. dominance in European security issues and the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Gaza Freedom Flotilla attempted to sail two ships in May and June to break the Israeli genocide and the illegal Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, the complicity of the U.S. and other countries in the genocide, and the refusal of Israel to acknowledge its nuclear weapons.
Individuals Continue to Take Action to Bring Attention to Ending Nuclear Weapons

In 2024-2025, 81-year-old U.S. citizen Susan Crane spent 230 days in prison in Germany for cutting a fence into Büchel Air Force Base, climbing atop earthen bunkers used to store both nuclear weapons and German Tornado fighter jets to protest the stationing of American nuclear weapons in Germany, and for refusing to pay a fine. For three decades, Crane protested nuclear weapons in the U.S. and in Europe. She’s poured her own blood on a nuclear destroyer and taken a hammer to warplanes. In total, she said she’s served around seven years in prison.

Büchel Air Force Base trains German soldiers to drop hydrogen bombs on behalf of the United States as part of NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements.

Susan van der Hijden from the Netherlands and Gerd Buntzly from Germany were both in prison in Germany starting in June 2024 for similar actions at the Büchel Air Force Base.

Four U.S. peace activist have been incarcerated in Germany over protests at the Büchel Air Base: John LaForge; Dennis DuVall; Susan Crane; and Brian Terrell, a long-time Catholic Worker and human rights activist from Maloy, Iowa who works with the Nevada Desert Experience and served 15 days in the Wittlich Prison south of Cologne, from February 26 to March 12, 2025.

In June 2025, Veterans For Peace members held a 40-day fast at the United Nation and the U.S. and Israeli missions to the U.N. in New York City to stop the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza as well as for a nuclear free world.
Pledge to Continue Working for the End of Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction

As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago, we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons, taking on our governments and the industries that make money from the construction and testing of these weapons of mass destruction.


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


Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience."
Full Bio >

The US Made the Mistake of Nuclear War Once—Never Again

The anniversary of the A-bombings must serve not only as a reminder of past devastation, but also as a call for a world free from the existential threat of nuclear war. Instead, we are headed in the opposite direction.

A young girl prays after floating a candle lit paper lantern on the river during 70th anniversary activities, comemorating the atomic bombing of Hiroshima at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park on August 6, 2015 in Hiroshima, Japan.
(Photo: Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Austin Headrick
Aug 06, 2025

Common Dreams


This year marks 80 years since the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing between 110,000 and 210,000 people. Yet, despite the lessons of this dark chapter of history, more countries are investing in expanding their nuclear arsenals as we face the threat of a renewed nuclear arms race.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, a symbol that represents the estimated likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe, is now only 89 seconds to midnight—unacceptably close to disaster. Global military spending approaches $3 trillion, fueling violence across the world. This spending pays for the Russian bombs dropped on Ukraine, the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza, and the escalation of militarized violence across the world. Meanwhile, nuclear development and expansion continue in all nine nuclear-armed states alongside growing fears of nuclear war in Ukraine, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, or the Korean Peninsula. We’re adding fuel to the fire.

U.S. President Donald Trump recently called the bombing of Iran’s Fordow nuclear site “essentially the same thing” as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. This comparison is unfounded and disrespectful. Stories from the A-bomb survivors all share a common theme: In one instant, the bombs turned an average summer day into a nearly incomprehensible hellscape. Even the B-29 bomber pilots who turned back to see the inferno they had unleashed looked down in shock at the burning city. The scale and destruction of these attacks are unlike any bombing the world has seen since.

The anniversary of the bombings must serve not only as a reminder of past devastation, but also as a call for a world free from the existential threat of nuclear war. Instead, we are headed in the opposite direction.

To expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Trump administration has requested an $87 billion budget in FY26 for nuclear weapons alone—up 26% from the nuclear weapons spending in 2025. The budget request will drastically increase spending on nuclear weapons, while cutting spending on nuclear nonproliferation, cleanup, and renewable energy programs. This is a continuation of the bipartisan trend in the U.S. to continue expanding our nuclear arsenal. For 80 years, A-Bomb survivors have been warning that nuclear weapons can never again be used to destroy lives, yet we are closer today than ever before.

The only world safe from nuclear war is one where nuclear weapons no longer exist. That world is possible—if we choose it.

As the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in war, the U.S. has a unique responsibility to lead the world back from the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Rather than increasing an already unprecedented military budget, the U.S. should instead lead the world as a model for investing in healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social welfare. People around the world are calling for a shift from spending on weapons and war to investing in meeting people’s basic needs. The 10% for All campaign envisions moving just one‑tenth of global military spending into human needs.

Diplomatic efforts are also crucial to stopping a nuclear arms race. Washington and Moscow must also come to the table to discuss the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)—the last nuclear arms control treaty between the two countries which will expire in February 2026. Currently there is little sign of discussion between the U.S. and Russia to find a meaningful proposal to address nuclear proliferation concerns.

To prevent the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from ever happening again, and to realize the full aspirations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), leaders must actively pursue a world free of nuclear weapons. The only world safe from nuclear war is one where nuclear weapons no longer exist. That world is possible—if we choose it. Join advocates across the U.S. urging Congress to take a meaningful step toward a world safe from nuclear war.

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


Austin Headrick is the public education and advocacy coordinator for Asia at American Friends Service Committee. Prior to joining AFSC, Austin lived in South Korea for seven years working on peace education. Austin obtained an MA in Korean Studies from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul.
Full Bio >

Remembering the Children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policy-making in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. And yet the world's nuclear-armed states continue to withhold their support for abolition.

PHOTO ESSAY

Suzuki Kimiko (left) and her elder brother, Hideaki (right), in Hiroshima a few years before the bombing. Both were killed, along with two other siblings. Their father, Rokuro, was a keen photographer.
(Photo courtesy of Suzuki Tsuneaki)

Tim Wright
Aug 06, 2025

Common Dreams

Before dawn on August 6, 1945, Tsuyako Kubota gave birth to her second daughter at her home in Hiroshima’s Nishikanon neighborhood. A few hours later, in a blinding flash, much of the city was reduced to smoldering ruins by a single atomic bomb.

The young mother, her newborn baby and her two-year-old daughter, Sumie, became trapped in the wreckage of their home. The girls’ father, Minoru, a Japanese-American from Hawaii, tried desperately to free them.

“Sumie was crying,” he recalled. “She said to me, ‘Daddy, it’s hot! The fire is coming! My hands are burning!’ There was a final scream, and then I couldn’t hear her voice anymore.”

Sumie and her hours-old sister—who was never given a name—were among the estimated 23,000 children killed in the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima 80 years ago this week. A further 15,000 perished in the attack on Nagasaki three days later.

“She said to me, ‘Daddy, it’s hot! The fire is coming! My hands are burning!’ There was a final scream, and then I couldn’t hear her voice anymore.”

Their deaths, and those of tens of thousands of other civilians, challenge official narratives in the West that the use of nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities in the final days of World War II was morally justified.

It is believed that this photo was taken one day before the Hiroshima bombing. Five-year-old Wataoka Hirono (right) and her two-year-old sister, Kimino (right), were both killed. (Photo courtesy of Iwata Miho)

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that U.S. public support for the attacks is declining. In 1945, it was as high as 85 percent. Today, only around 35 percent of Americans believe their government’s actions were justified, with 31 percent believing they weren’t. The other third are unsure.

…

With few exceptions, those who survived the atomic bombings and are still alive were children at the time. Through their young eyes, they witnessed unimaginable horror. Known in Japanese as hibakusha, many have devoted their lives to the cause of nuclear disarmament, sharing their first-hand testimonies time and again in the hope of avoiding a recurrence of such tragedies. Their warning is stark: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.

Last December, their efforts were recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, or the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations.

Their warning is stark: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.

Many of the survivors lost their parents, siblings, and friends. They have suffered lifelong physical and psychological trauma. Some have endured multiple surgeries to treat painful keloid scars, extract glass fragments embedded deep in their bodies, or remove cancers caused by their exposure to the bombs’ radiation.

Three-year-old Tetsutani Shinichi (right) was killed in the Hiroshima bombing while doing what he loved most: riding his tricycle. His seven-year-old sister, Michiko (left), and their baby sister, Yoko, were also killed. (Photo courtesy of the Tetsutani family)

In a nuclear attack, children are especially vulnerable, as their skin is more delicate and their bodies frailer, and they have more cells that are growing and dividing rapidly and thus more susceptible to radiation effects. They are significantly more likely than adults to die from burns, blast injuries, and acute radiation sickness.

As the late paediatric endocrinologist Michael S. Kappy explained in a 1984 paper, “Children and adults do not share equally the dreadful short-term effects of ‘the bomb’, and it is clear from all available data that children are also most susceptible to the long-term effects that appear after varying latency periods.”

The disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on infants and children was underscored in a declaration adopted this March by the 73 countries that have so far ratified or acceded to the landmark 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

In a nuclear attack, children are especially vulnerable, as their skin is more delicate and their bodies frailer, and they have more cells that are growing and dividing rapidly and thus more susceptible to radiation effects.

The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policy-making in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. Yet, all nine such states continue to act contrary to that objective. And the risk of a nuclear weapon being used again appears to be at an all-time high.

…

In Hiroshima, thousands of school students were outdoors creating firebreaks on the morning of the atomic bombing. Completely unshielded from the bomb’s effects, they stood little chance of survival. The mortality rate for those within one kilometre of the hypocentre was around 94 percent. Approximately 6,300 of them died.

Many parents spent days or weeks searching for their missing children in the aftermath. For some, not knowing their children’s fate became unbearable. One mother in Hiroshima, refusing to accept her daughter’s death, kept a door or window open for the rest of her life in case she one day returned home.

Some parents managed to identify the charred, swollen bodies of their children among scores of corpses only by the name tags on their clothes. Others found their children alive and nursed them for days, weeks or months until they took their final breaths. More than a few expressed guilt at the inadequacy of their care amid extreme shortages of medicines and food.

In Nagasaki, one mother watched as four of her children succumbed to acute radiation poisoning one after another. “I kept thinking that human beings shouldn’t die so easily,” she reflected.

Another Nagasaki mother’s face was so badly burnt and disfigured in the attack that her grievously injured two-year-old son couldn’t recognize her as she cared for him in his dying moments.

Some children appeared unharmed at first, having sustained no burns or other visible injuries, but developed fatal diseases years later, as ionizing radiation had entered their bodies and altered their cells.

All four members of the Miyazaki family in this photo were killed in the Nagasaki bombing: eight-year-old Yuji (centre rear), five-year-old Tsuneji (right), three-year-old Yasuko (centre front) and their mother, Tsuneko. (Photo courtesy of Saito Takeo)

One such child was Sadako Sasaki, a toddler at the time of the Hiroshima bombing. She died a decade later from acute malignant lymph gland leukemia. During her hospitalization, she folded over a thousand paper cranes with her weak and skinny arms in the hope it would bring her good health.

“Until her very last moment, she held onto her wish and made a great effort to survive,” her father remembered. “I loved her so much that I couldn’t come to terms with her death for a long time.”

Sadako’s tragic story continues to inspire children in Japan and throughout the world to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons—an increasingly urgent task given deteriorating relations among nuclear-armed states and the enhancement and expansion of their arsenals.

It is estimated there are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, most of them vastly more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped eight decades ago. In the words of the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, “They offer no security—just carnage and chaos. Their elimination would be the greatest gift we could bestow on future generations.”


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


Tim Wright is the treaty coordinator for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
Full Bio >

80 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Are We on the Verge of Another Nuclear War?


With escalating military confrontations today—even the possibility of a World War—how long can “deterrence” work?

An activist with a mask of U.S. President Donald Trump marches with a model of a nuclear rocket during a demonstration against nuclear weapons on November 18, 2017 in Berlin, Germany.
(Photo: Adam Berry/Getty Images)

Gerry Condon
Aug 06, 2025

Common Dreams

Eighty years ago, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are now nine nuclear-armed nations, many in military confrontation with one another. It is quite remarkable that there has not been another nuclear war. How can this be explained?

Some say the absence of another nuclear war proves that nuclear “deterrence” is working, and to some extent that is true. These nations are rightfully afraid of a nuclear conflagration, which could obliterate their societies, and even destroy all life on planet Earth. With escalating military confrontations today—even the possibility of a World War—how long can “deterrence” work?

“So Far, So Good…”

“So far so good” is probably the faintly hopeful refrain heard from many who feel helpless to undo the nuclear danger. This is reminiscent of the cartoon of the man falling from the top of a building. As he passes each descending floor, he proclaims, “So far, so good…”

In reality, a fair amount of luck has helped humanity avert nuclear catastrophe until now. We came very close during the “Cuban Missile Crisis.” A political officer on a Russian submarine that was out of communication and uncertain if a nuclear war had already begun called off a missile launch at the last minute. Another Russian military technician, suspicious of an errant radar reading that appeared to show incoming U.S. missiles, called off another imminent nuclear strike. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

Many experts worry that it will be an accidental nuclear launch that ends us. This is all the more concerning as Artificial Intelligence is applied to nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, decreasing the decision-making time to split seconds, and removing human oversight. What could go wrong?

Never Again?

Sunset or nuclear blast?

2025 also marks 80 years from the end of World War II and the defeat of the German fascists by Russia, the United States, and the European Allies. Eighty years since Russian and U.S. troops liberated thousands of skeletal prisoners from German concentration camps, much to the horror of the world, which reacted with calls of “Never Again!”

But wait, don’t we have concentration camps now in the U.S.? Isn’t that why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now has a larger budget than many national militaries, and larger than the entire current federal prison system? They are building concentration camps for undocumented workers, whom they demonize as “murderers,” “rapists,” “gang members,” and “terrorists.” The vast majority of immigrants who have already been violently taken from their jobs and families, imprisoned, and deported have no criminal records whatsoever, and are productive, respected members of their communities.

If you think I am pointing the finger at the U.S. as the “bad guy” who is mostly responsible for the prospect of a civilization-ending nuclear war, then you are reading correctly.

Authoritarianism with distinct overtones of white supremacy is on the rise once again, while craven European politicians clamor for war with Russia and more military spending. 

What could go wrong?

Israel, purportedly a safe haven for the persecuted Jewish people—a “land without people for a people without land”—is escalating its blatant genocide in Gaza. The images of intentionally starved Palestinian men, women, and children conjure images of emaciated prisoners—mostly Jews—in World War II concentration camps.

Israel Wages Genocide While Threatening Its Neighbors with Nuclear Weapons

Israel is also a nuclear power, although it has long been considered impolite to say so. The United States helped Israel gain nuclear technology and has helped to shield Israel from any nuclear accountability. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its nuclear arsenal is not inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the U.S. weaponized to support its rationale for war against Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The IAEA announced a resolution critical of Iran’s nuclear program on Thursday, June 12, the day before Israel’s attack on Iran. Coincidence? Probably not. Like so many other international bodies, the IAEA has been subverted to serve U.S. and Israeli war aims.

Unlike Iran, Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Will they use them against Iran? The Israeli government of right-wing extremists has already shown us the depths of depravity they are willing to go. Furthermore, all their Arab neighbors know Israel is the only nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East.

Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, reminded us that “nuclear weapons are used every day. They are like a gun you point at somebody’s head.”

Aside from “luck,” it has been nuclear arms treaties that have held nuclear war in check. In recent years, however, the U.S. has shredded most of these treaties and missed many opportunities for peace:Former President Ronald Reagan rejected Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons if the U.S. would stop deployment of a “Star Wars” missile defense system in space.

Former President Bill Clinton refused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,500 bombs and to call on all of the other nuclear-armed states to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in exchange for the U.S. not placing missile sites in Romania.

Former President George W. Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and put a missile base in Romania. President Donald Trump placed another missile base in Poland.

Former President Bush in 2008 and former President Barack Obama in 2014 blocked any discussion of Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound United Nations Committee for Disarmament in Geneva.

President Obama rejected President Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, and placed sanctions on Iran.
From President Clinton through President Trump, the U.S. has never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was ratified by Russia has ratified.

Taken in their totality, these U.S. moves constitute an attempt to gain nuclear superiority, including the possibility of launching a First Strike nuclear attack. Pulling out of the ABM and INF treaties, in particular, indicate U.S. intentions to threaten Russia with nuclear war.

Is it any wonder that Russia, faced with the prospect of the U.S.-North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops and nuclear weapons systems stationed on its border with Ukraine, felt compelled to take military action? Now Russia is stuck in a bloody war that has been constantly escalated by the U.S., which has rejected multiple opportunities for peace talks since the war began. Russia asked for neutrality for Ukraine and respect for the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking populations. Over 1 million casualties later (both sides), the bloody trench-and-drone war drags on, not because of Russian intransigence, but because of the aggressive U.S. policy of “full-spectrum dominance” in every corner of the globe.

Drone Attack on Russia’s Strategic Bombers Tempted Nuclear War

On June 1 of this year, a U.S.-supported Ukrainian drone attack on nuclear bombers in Russia almost triggered a nuclear war. According to a Russian general who spoke with former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) geopolitical analyst Larry Johnson, the world was even closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russian bombers were openly visible on the tarmac, in accordance with the New START Treaty, which is designed to prevent a nuclear-first strike by either Russia or the U.S. This last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia is due to expire this coming February. But it already has been drone bombed.

News Flash! President Trump just posted on his Truth Social account that he is sending two nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia. Why? Because he didn’t like something that Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev said on social media. What? Trump is scoring pissing points by playing with nuclear weapons? A narcissistic psychopath has his hand on the nuclear button. This is all the more reason to push for an end to the president’s sole authority to launch a nuclear war.

To round out this bleak report, we must at least mention that the U.S. is planning for war against China. The United States is openly planning to wage a war against China—some say as soon as 2027. Why? Because China’s remarkable revolution from extreme poverty to becoming a prosperous global powerhouse is something that the U.S. ruling class (or “deep state”) will not accept. So China will not be attacked because of its military aggression. Even as the U.S. wages perpetual war on multiple countries, China has not been at war with anybody in this century. U.S. complaints about Taiwan are nothing more than an excuse, a trigger for the war that U.S. leaders are determined to wage, at all costs.

The Pentagon Is Planning a Nuclear First-Strike Against China

The Pentagon has figured out that it cannot win a conventional war against China, however. It is planning to use nuclear weapons—an overwhelming first strike or possibly only “tactical nuclear weapons,” those cute little guys that are several times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima.

U.S. war planners recently asked Australia and Japan to declare what military resources they will bring to bear in a war against China. And get this… the U.S. held talks with Japan, of all nations, to discuss how they will coordinate their efforts after a nuclear strike on China. Among the issues they discussed were how they could best manage public opinion after a nuclear war.

It is mostly by dumb luck, however, that we have not all perished in a nuclear Armageddon already.

So if you think I am pointing the finger at the U.S. as the “bad guy” who is mostly responsible for the prospect of a civilization-ending nuclear war, then you are reading correctly. To put it bluntly, the problem is U.S. imperialism. The waning U.S. empire, desperate to maintain its hegemony and expand it, is the elephant in the room. It is buttressed by a very large and powerful military-industrial complex (MIC), the one that former President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about—now on steroids. Ray McGovern of Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a former CIA analyst himself, has expanded the MIC acronym to MICIMATT (Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think Tanks). Yes, they are all complicit, not just with genocide in Palestine, but with militarizing and destroying the world. We peace-loving people have our work cut out for us. We are up against a lot.

There is a lot of money to be made from war and militarism. And politicians learn the advantages of justifying war and funding the war machine. The ever-growing Pentagon budget has ballooned to over $1 trillion under Trump, money that will be redirected from the social security net that is being systematically shredded. Spending on nuclear weapons “modernization” alone will cost $100 billion in just the next year (from the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy).

“The End Is Near”

For decades, peace activists, scientists, and others have been warning us about the “growing danger of nuclear war.” Those sounding the nuclear alarm have been treated like the proverbial fanatic with the sign, “The End Is Near,” or like Chicken Little—“The sky is falling.” It is mostly by dumb luck, however, that we have not all perished in a nuclear Armageddon already. The guard rails have been removed, with the U.S. abrogation of nuclear arms deals. There are very few “adults in the room,” certainly not in the U.S., where neocons who love Israel but hate Iran and Russia have seized the helm. It will take a miracle and a lot of activism to avoid utter disaster in the relatively near future.

Many peoples are already experiencing disaster, what with wars, genocide, extreme poverty, starvation, and the climate crisis—the fruits of corporate greed and militarism. Many people also suffer from the poison of the entire nuclear cycle. There are 15,000 abandoned uranium mines in the Western U.S., many of them on First Nations lands. Radiation contaminates the water, the air, the land, and the people, who suffer from many cancers and radiation-related diseases.
The U.S. Exploded 67 Nuclear Bombs in the Marshall Islands

Then there are the “downwinders” who suffer from the radiation of nuclear bomb testing. Or worse. The Marshall Islands were devastated by nuclear bomb testing. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear bombs on this island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. To add insult to injury, their islands are now “sinking” from global warming and rising seas. Many Marshallese, unable to grow food on radiated land and unable to eat the fish from radiated waters, have been allowed to live in the U.S., without citizenship or security, and denied healthcare by many states. There is no cancer treatment facility in the Marshall Islands, and no Veterans Affairs facility for its many veterans of the U.S. military.

We will end this disturbing nuclear tour on a positive note. It has to do with the Marshall Islands. In 1958, four Quaker peace activists bought a sailboat and announced to the world their intention to sail from Los Angeles 4,000 miles into the nuclear test zone in the Marshall Islands to stop U.S. nuclear testing. They were led by Albert Bigelow, a World War II Navy commander who resigned his commission in protest of the U.S. nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Golden Rule Crew Tried to Stop U.S. Nuclear Testing

Halfway through the voyage, when Bigelow and his intrepid crew pulled into Honolulu, they were arrested and thrown in jail and the Coast Guard seized their boat, named Golden Rule. They never made it to the Marshall Islands, but they succeeded in bringing worldwide attention to the danger of radiation that was floating all over the globe, even getting into mothers’ milk. Opposition to nuclear testing led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1962, signed by then-President John F. Kennedy and the leaders of Russia and the United Kingdom. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, in the water, and in space. Only underground tests were permitted. These days most nuclear testing is done using computer simulations.

The remarkable saga of the Golden Rule continued. The 34-foot ketch was sold and sailed as a pleasure boat by several families to the South Pacific and the Caribbean. Somehow, in 2010 it was found in Humboldt Bay in northern California—a derelict boat that had sunk in a gale and had a big hole in its side. Some locals dragged the beat-up boat onto the beach and planned to make a bonfire of it. When a someone discovered the boat’s legacy, however, local members of Veterans For Peace rescued it and decided to restore it to its original glory.

In June of 2015, after five years of dedicated volunteer labor by veterans, Quakers, and boat lovers, the Golden Rule splashed back into the waters of Humboldt Bay and began sailing up and down the West Coast from British Columbia to Mexico (Ensenada), then to Hawai’i and all around the Hawai’ian islands. Back to California, trucked to Minneapolis, sailed down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, to Cuba and up the East Coast to Toronto and back to Chicago, a 12-month voyage with a total of 102 port stops. At every stop the Golden Rule and its crew were welcomed excitedly by local peace and environmental activists as well as by state and local officials. Nobody wants a nuclear war!

The Golden Rule Is Sailing Around San Francisco Bay

The historic peace boat Golden Rule Sails by the Golden Gate Bridge

The historic Golden Rule peace boat sailed last week from its homeport in Humboldt Bay to San Francisco Bay, where it will spend the month of August educating the public about the “growing danger of nuclear war,” and the importance of supporting the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The treaty, supported by an overwhelming majority of countries, went into force in January 2021. It prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging, or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities

Peace at Home, Peace Abroad!

The Golden Rule is a national project of Veterans For Peace, a 40-year-old organization dedicated to exposing the true costs of war; to restraining our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations; and to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. At its recent national convention, veterans from U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and recent deployments made a united call for opposition to the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and for resistance to racist ICE attacks in our own communities. While calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the Golden Rule will be echoing these urgent cries for “Peace at Home, Peace Abroad.”


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

Gerry Condon is a Vietnam-era veteran and former president of Veterans For Peace.

Hiroshima marks 80 years as US-Russia nuclear tensions rise


Hiroshima is marking 80 years since the world's first atomic bomb attack

 - Copyright AFP Richard A. Brooks

By AFP
August 5, 2025
Kyoko HASEGAWA

Japan marks 80 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Wednesday with a ceremony reminding the world of the horrors unleashed, as sabre-rattling between the United States and Russia keeps the nuclear “Doomsday Clock” close to midnight.

A silent prayer was due to be held at 8:15 am (2315 GMT), the moment when US aircraft Enola Gay dropped “Little Boy” over the western Japanese city on August 6, 1945.

The final death toll would hit around 140,000 people, killed not just by the colossal blast and the ball of fire, but also later by the radiation.

Three days after “Little Boy”, on August 9, another atomic bomb killed 74,000 people in Nagasaki. Imperial Japan surrendered on August 15, bringing an end to World War II.

Today, Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis of 1.2 million people, but the ruins of a domed building stand in the city centre as a stark reminder.

Wednesday’s ceremony was set to include a record of around 120 countries and regions including, for the first time, Taiwanese and Palestinian representatives.

The United States — which has never formally apologised for the bombings — will be represented by its ambassador to Japan. Absent will be Russia and China, organisers said Monday.

Nihon Hidankyo, the grassroots organisation that last year won the Nobel Peace Prize, will represent the dwindling number of survivors, known as hibakusha.

As of March, there are 99,130 hibakusha, according to the Japanese health ministry, with the average age of 86.

“I want foreign envoys to visit the peace memorial museum and understand what happened,” the group’s co-chair Toshiyuki Mimaki told local media ahead of the commemorations.

– Younger generation –

The attacks remain the only time atomic bombs have been used in wartime.

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui is expected at the ceremony to urge attendees to “never give up” on achieving a nuclear-free world.

Kunihiko Sakuma, 80, who survived the blasts as a baby, told AFP he was hopeful.

“I think the global trend of seeking a nuclear-free world will continue,” he said.

“The younger generation is working hard for that end,” he said ahead of the ceremony.

But in January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ “Doomsday Clock” shifted to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest in its 78-year history.

The clock symbolising humanity’s distance from destruction was last moved to 90 seconds to midnight over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Russia and the United States account for around 90 percent of the world’s over 12,000 warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

SIPRI warned in June that “a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened,” with nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states modernising their arsenals.

Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump said that he had ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines following an online spat with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

Last month, Matsui urged Trump to visit Hiroshima after the US president likened the 1945 atomic bombings to air strikes on Iran in June.

“It seems to me that he does not fully understand the reality of the atomic bombings, which, if used, take the lives of many innocent citizens, regardless of whether they were friend or foe, and threaten the survival of the human race,” Matsui said at the time.

ENOLA GAY BY OMD

SLIM PICKENS RIDES A-BOMB DOWN

DR. STRANGELOVE FINALE

Yosemite National Park Employees Worked Without Pay for Weeks Amid Trump Cuts

"It's definitely taking advantage of people who love their jobs and don't want the park to suffer," said one park employee.

Visitors gather around the new Yosemite Valley Welcome Center near the Valley Store in Yosemite National Park, California, on Tuesday, May 20, 2025.
(Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Aug 04, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

NPR on Monday published a lengthy investigation that found seasonal workers at Yosemite National Park this year worked for as long as six weeks without pay amid the chaos caused by the Trump administration's massive staffing cuts.

Multiple Yosemite workers told NPR that they felt exploited and added that they haven't received any backpay for the work they performed for free earlier this year.

"It's definitely taking advantage of people who love their jobs and don't want the park to suffer," said one park employee who worked without pay for three weeks before being formally hired.

As NPR explained, major national parks typically hire seasonal workers as extra help from May until October, which are the peak months for visitors. This year, however, actions by the Trump administration threw the parks' hiring routine into chaos and left human resources departments unsure of how many people they could afford to hire.

"On February 14, 10 full time federal employees at Yosemite were fired when the federal government terminated about 1,000 newly hired employees throughout the National Park Service," wrote NPR. "In the weeks that followed, additional experienced workers left the park service voluntarily. Since January, the amount of permanent staff across the service has declined by 24%, according to data analyzed in July by the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit that defends parks."

As if that weren't chaotic enough, the government had to rehire many of the workers it had previously let go after realizing they were indispensable to keeping the parks operational.

"We had the firing of probationary employees in February and then the rehiring, and this was a huge, huge burden on human resources to try to get people in and out," Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, told NPR.

One park employee told NPR that this led to nonstop turmoil for workers who were unsure when, if ever, they would receive a paycheck.

"My supervisors were emailing people week after week saying, 'Hey, the update is there's no updates and we understand you guys need housing and you're relying on this and we're relying on you. And we don't know what's going on, but one option is to volunteer,'" the worker explained.

As bad as things are at Yosemite, the situation is actually even worse at several smaller national parks that were not able to hire any kind of seasonal help this year. In fact, NPR pointed to data from the National Parks Conservation Association showing that "only about 4,500 of the people expected to fill 8,000 seasonal positions across the park service were working in seasonal roles."

A report released last month by the Center for American Progress (CAP) projected that the Trump administration's additional proposed cuts to national parks would dramatically worsen the experiences of visitors.

"In total, the proposed budget includes a nearly $4 billion cut to national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness and recreation areas, and more," wrote CAP in its report. "That is a 35% decrease from 2024 funding and will impact services such as maintenance, research, land conservation and restoration, recreation, cultural and historic preservation, and visitor services."

The report also said that the cuts already enacted under the Department of Government Efficiency have resulted in "closed ranger stations at popular recreation areas, closed campgrounds in the Great Smoky Mountains, and closed access to public lakes and park toilets nationwide."

Judge Rules Rocky Mountain Wolves Wrongly Denied Endangered Species Protections

One advocate said the ruling "offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act."

Two grey wolves interact in Yellowstone National Park 
(Photo: John Morrison/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Aug 05, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Conservationists cautiously celebrated a U.S. judge's Tuesday ruling that the federal government must reconsider its refusal to grant protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, as killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put the species at risk.

Former President Joe Biden's administration determined last year that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted," sparking multiple lawsuits from coalitions of conservation groups. The cases were consolidated and considered by Montana-based District Judge Donald Molloy, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

As the judge detailed in his 105-page decision, the advocacy groups argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to consider a "significant portion" of the gray wolf's range, the "best available science" on their populations and the impact of humans killing them, and the true threat to the species. He also wrote that "for the most part, the plaintiffs are correct."

Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which represented one of the coalitions, said in a statement that "the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case."

"Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law," Bishop continued. "We hope this decision will encourage the service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West."

Coalition members similarly welcomed Molloy's decision as "an important step toward finally ending the horrific and brutal war on wolves that the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have waged in recent years," in the words of George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch.

Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy said that "today's ruling is an incredible victory for wolves. At a time where their numbers are being driven down to near extinction levels, this decision is a vital lifeline."

Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that "with Montana set to approve a 500 wolf kill quota at the end of August, this decision could not have come at a better time. Wolves may now have a real shot at meaningful recovery."



Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist Nick Gevock said that "wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have shown that they're grossly unsuited to manage the species."

Gevock's group is part of a coalition represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. Kitty Block, president and CEO of the latter, said Tuesday that "wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home."

"Today's ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act," Block stressed. "These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.

While "Judge Molloy's ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem," as Gevock put it, the agency may also appeal his decision.

The original rejection came under Biden, but the reconsideration will occur under President Donald Trump, whose first administration was hostile to the ESA in general and wolves in particular. The current administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have signaled in recent months that they intend to maintain that posture.

WELC highlighted Tuesday that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) "introduced H.R. 845 to strip ESA protections from gray wolves across the Lower 48. If passed, this bill would congressionally delist all gray wolves in the Lower 48 the same way wolves in the northern Rockies were congressionally delisted in 2011, handing management authority over to states."

Emphasizing what that would mean for the species, WELC added that "regulations in Montana, for example, allow hunters and trappers to kill several hundred wolves per year—with another 500-wolf quota proposed this year—with bait, traps, snares, night hunting, infrared and thermal imagery scopes, and artificial light."

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves Get Another Shot at Protections

Federal Judge Says Fish and Wildlife Service Must Reconsider Protections Denial



For Immediate Release
Tuesday August, 05 2025
Center for Biological Diversity

MISSOULA, Montana - A federal judge in Montana ruled today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service broke the law last year when it denied a petition to protect gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains under the Endangered Species Act. The agency must now reconsider whether to grant protections to wolves living in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed last year by the four conservation and animal protection groups who authored and submitted the petition in 2021: the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane World for Animals (formerly called the Humane Society of the United States), Humane World Action Fund (formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund) and the Sierra Club.

“With this court ruling comes the hope of true recovery for wolves across the West,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The judge rightly found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s unambitious view of recovery violates the Endangered Species Act. Recovery requires that wolves return to places like the vast southern Rockies, where they once lived. They can thrive there if they have the lifesaving protections of the Endangered Species Act.”

Today’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy faulted the government for disregarding the potential for wolf recovery across Colorado and the rest of the southern Rocky Mountains including most of Utah, northern New Mexico and northern Arizona.

Molloy found that the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to consider the southern Rocky Mountains region and other portions of the wolves’ historic range. He also concluded that the agency unlawfully disregarded the potential importance of the wolf’s fledgling return to Colorado, through natural dispersal and historic reintroductions, when the agency denied the petition.

“Wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals. “Today’s ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act. These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.”

“Gray wolf recovery is at a crossroads in the western United States, so they should not be relegated to the crosshairs of the killing campaigns that pushed them to the brink of extinction," said Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund. “The Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempts to deny these animals much-needed federal protection betrays not only the letter of the law, but countless Americans who want to see wolves protected."

The Endangered Species Act petition submitted by the conservation groups was filed amid escalating hostility toward wolves in several northern Rockies states.

In Idaho, recent changes to state law allows the state to hire private contractors to kill wolves, lets hunters purchase unlimited wolf-killing tags and allows them to kill wolves by chasing them with hounds or all-terrain vehicles. Idaho and Montana allow bounties to be paid as “reimbursements” for dead wolves.

In Montana, state law allows wolves to be killed by bait and strangulation snares and recently proposed regulations, if finalized, would allow a single hunter to kill 15 wolves and trap an additional 15.

In Wyoming wolves are designated as “predatory animals” and can be killed without a license in nearly any manner at any time. Hunters in Wyoming have killed several wolves just a few miles from the border with Colorado, where wolves are finally returning to the state through dispersals and restoration efforts.

“Wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have shown that they’re grossly unsuited to manage the species,” said Nick Gevock, Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist. “Judge Molloy’s ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem.”

Today’s ruling vacates the Service’s denial of the petition, and the agency must now reconsider its response. The agency has 60 days to appeal the decision.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by attorneys at the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals’ Animal Protection Law department.

ORWELLIAN

Trump EPA Moves to Cancel $7 Billion in Solar Grants for Low- and Middle-Income Households

"At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.


Workers install no-cost solar panels on the rooftop of a low-income household on October 19, 2023 in Pomona, California.
(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Aug 05, 202

COMMON DREAMS

In a move denounced by climate and environmental justice defenders, the Trump administration is planning to claw back $7 billion in federal grants for low- and middle-income households to install rooftop solar panels, people briefed on the matter told The New York Times on Tuesday.

According to the Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Indigenous tribes that received the grants under the Solar for All program. The move is part of the Trump administration's efforts to cancel billions of dollars in climate- and environment-oriented grants included in former President Joe Biden's landmark Inflation Reduction Act, signed in 2022.

Solar for All was launched by the Biden administration in 2023 in conjunction with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The program aimed to "develop long-lasting solar programs that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar, lowering energy costs for families, creating good-quality jobs in communities that have been left behind, advancing environmental justice, and tackling climate change."

The program was meant to help around 900,000 low- and middle-income households go solar.

The Trump administration froze Solar for All funding in February after President Donald Trump issued a day one executive order mandating a review of all Biden-era climate spending. The funds were reinstated in early March after EPA "worked expeditiously to enable payment accounts," according to the agency.

Responding to the Times report, Sanders said in a statement: "I introduced the Solar for All program to slash electric bills for working families by up to 80%—putting money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel billionaires. Now, Donald Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous."

"Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs, and real action to address the existential threat of climate change," Sanders continued. "At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane."

"We will fight back to preserve this enormously important program," he added.

Other Solar for All proponents also slammed the reported EPA move.

"Canceling these investments makes no sense," Adam Kent, green finance director amt the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "Every investment will save families at least 20% on their energy bills. Members of Congress need to step up and defend a program that focused on lowering energy bills for hardworking Americans."

"The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise."

Kyle Wallace, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the solar company PosiGen, said on social media: "This would be a shocking and harmful action that will hurt vulnerable families who are struggling with rising energy costs. The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise. EPA should not do this."

Solar for All defenders vowed to fight the EPA's move.

"If leaders in the Trump administration move forward with this unlawful attempt to strip critical funding from communities across the United States, we will see them in court," Kym Meyer, litigation director at the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, told the Times.

'Unacceptable': Trump Admin Approves More Exports From LNG Terminal With History of Violations


"Venture Global already has countless air permit violations at this facility, polluting my community and making people across the region sick," said the founder of Vessel Project of Louisiana.

A large liquified natural gas transport ship sits docked in the Calcasieu River on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, near Cameron, Louisiana.
(Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Aug 05, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Climate advocates slammed U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday after it signed off on allowing additional liquefied natural gas exports from a controversial terminal with a lengthy history of environmental violations.

In a press release, the U.S. Department of Energy said that Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has now given final authorization for more gas exports from Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. In total, the new authorizations could allow the export of an additional 20 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the terminal per year.

In touting the authorization, Wright argued that it was "another reminder that this administration is committed to expanding the supply of abundant, affordable, and secure American energy."

The Calcasieu Pass terminal racked up more than 2,000 deviations from its air permit in its first year of operation back in 2022 and has long been a target for environmental and climate activists.

Mahyar Sorour, director of beyond fossil fuels policy at Sierra Club, hammered the administration for supporting policies that would accelerate the global climate emergency.

"It is unacceptable that on the same day Secretary Wright denies climate science, his agency approves more exports from Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass facility," said Sorour. "LNG exports are driving our climate crisis. While communities are experiencing increasingly more dangerous and deadly extreme weather disasters, this administration is pushing an agenda that benefits polluting corporations at all of our expense."

Roishetta Ozane, founder of Vessel Project of Louisiana, warned that the authorizations of new exports posed a direct health threat to her community.

"Venture Global already has countless air permit violations at this facility, polluting my community and making people across the region sick," she said. "But now they've been given a free pass to keep our families in danger with even more LNG exports. This administration is completely disregarding public health, safety, and climate science to boost the profits of a company that cuts corners at every turn, while we pay the price."

Trump has made doubling down on fossil fuels a centerpiece of his administration's energy strategy even as other nations push for a transition to cleaner and cheaper energy sources such as wind and solar power. The massive budget package recently passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by Trump contained an additional billions of dollars worth of subsidies for fossil fuel production, even as it gutted the green energy subsidies that were approved in 2022 after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

This massive corporate bonus reveals everything about Trump's America

Robert Reich
August 5, 2025 

RAW STORY

Tesla announced on Monday that it’s granting additional shares to Elon Musk worth around $29 billion. Tesla’s board describes it as a “first step, ‘good faith’ payment” to Musk — even as Tesla continues to battle in court over reinstating an even bigger pay package that a Delaware judge struck down.



Why is this giant pay package necessary, you might ask, when Musk already holds 13 percent of the company, worth hundreds of billions?

It’s not as if Tesla is thriving and Musk has contributed to its profitability. In fact, Tesla’s sales and profit are falling and it’s losing market share. Tesla’s stock is now down about 20 percent for the year. The company hasn’t reported an increase in quarterly earnings since the third quarter of 2024.



ALSO READ: 'Skeevy' Epstein gave us the creeps: top academics recall bizarre island visit



Tesla’s downward profit spiral is mainly due to Musk’s involvement in right-wing politics, which has alienated many car buyers. Although Musk has officially left the Trump administration, he is still nosing around politics. He’s even talking about starting a third party.

And let’s be clear: His political power comes directly from his wealth. Tesla’s making him $29 billion wealthier arguably makes American politics $29 billion dirtier.


It’s not as if Musk needs the additional money. He’s already the world’s richest person, worth about $350 billion.


So why is Tesla’s board giving him a $29 billion raise?

Because Musk hinted last month that he wanted more shares in Tesla to prevent his ouster by “activist” shareholders. It was a “major concern,” he said on an earnings call with analysts.

But this excuse begs the question of why activist shareholders would want him ousted if he were doing such a good job at Tesla. The answer is he’s obviously not doing a good job, and he knows it.


Tesla’s directors aren’t exerting better control over Musk because the board is packed with Musk’s close friends and his brother. This is called a conflict of interest, people.

In fact, what Musk is doing to Tesla is a smaller version of what Trump is doing to America: fleecing it while running it into the ground.

And Tesla’s board’s response is a miniature version of the way congressional Republicans are responding to Trump: rubber-stamping whatever he wants.


Many Tesla shareholders, meanwhile, resemble Trump’s MAGA base. They’ve made a cult out of Musk and applaud anything that keeps him at Tesla despite his breathtakingly irresponsible performance as CEO.

Call it authoritarian capitalism.Robert Reich is a professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com

Fox News host turns colleagues' selective outrage back on them: 'Heard no complaints!'

Jennifer Bowers Bahney
August 5, 2025 

COMMON DREAMS


Jessica Tarlov (Fox News)

Jessica Tarlov is no stranger to being the sole liberal voice on a Fox News panel, and she used that voice Tuesday to turn her colleagues' conservative outrage back on them.

Tarlov cried hypocrisy during a discussion with Martha MacCallum and Tomi Lahren about Texas Democrats shirking their duties by fleeing to so-called "blue states" to prevent a quorum for a redistricting vote that favored the GOP.

President Donald Trump claimed on CNBC Tuesday that Republicans were "entitled to five more" congressional seats from the state because he said he won Texas "decisively" in last year’s presidential election.

The Texas Democratic lawmakers defied the governor and Texas attorney general's threats of arrest, with no plans to return to the state until the obvious gerrymandering is addressed.

"There was a bill in 2021 that all the Democrats supported that would have had a national ban on redistricting in this way, and all the Republicans opposed it," Tarlov began. "I also heard no complaints when Mike Johnson, just a couple weeks ago, decided to abdicate his job to say, 'Congress isn't in session anymore because I don't want to have to vote on turning over the Epstein files -- the bill put forward by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie.' He said, 'Let's go home,' rather than talk about the fact that Donald Trump may or may not have been in there."

Tarlov added, "Be equal opportunity in your complaints about fleeing your job. At least they're doing this for a good reason."

The Texas Democrats have said they're defying the legislature in the name of democracy and are ready to face the consequences of their actions, even if that means fines and arrests.

Watch the clip below via CNN.

'Totally out to lunch': Trump's 'crock of lies' gets profane takedown from ex-Labor chief

Robert Davis
August 5, 2025 

RAW STORY


Pod Save America screenshot

A former Labor Secretary had strong words for President Donald Trump after his latest move.

Trump last week fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer and accused her of manipulating economic data to hurt him politically. The jobs report that McEntarfer's agency released that day showed that hiring was largely flat during Trump's first quarter in office, and the workforce participation rate declined.

Robert Reich, an economist and former leader of the Department of Labor, discussed McEntarfer's firing on a recent episode of Pod Save America with host Jon Lovett.

"It's so dumb," Reich said. "Jon, this is beyond foolish and dumb. This is crazy!"

"This administration, no, this regime, Trump has done some really dumb things. Obviously, we all know it. But this is putting the entire economy in jeopardy," he added.


Reich explained that Trump's assertion of political interference with the job numbers is implausible because of how the BLS operates. He said the agency goes to great lengths to protect its independence and that assertions otherwise are a "big crock of lies."


"It's amazing bull----," Reich said. "The [BLS] routinely changes, as new information comes in about previous months, they revise [the numbers]. They want to make it so accurate. They know the stakes are so high."

Trump, who touts himself as an accomplished businessman, should know the importance of these statistics as well, Reich argued. Domestic and international investors use them to judge the health of the U.S. market.

"This is serious, worrisome," Reich said. "This is a government that is totally out to lunch."


Watch the entire episode below or by clicking here.

Lies, damn lies, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Nick Anderson.

 Raw Story
August 5, 2025


Nick Anderson/Raw Story

Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.