Thursday, July 09, 2026

Americans are Not as Well Off as People in Peer Nations: US Safety Net’s Shortfalls Show up in Global Data



 July 8, 2026

House, Seymour, Indiana. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.

We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.

The latest data our team has amassed shows that the U.S. is falling short compared with what it could achieve, given its US$32 trillion economy. This is not a one-year blip – the U.S. has been underperforming for the past 25 years.

Economic and social rights

Two foundational human rights agreements, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, describe countries’ obligations to promote the welfare of their people. Countries should improve the health, education and occupational well-being of their people over time, as best they can, given their “resources.”

The United States co-authored and voted in favor of the universal declaration in 1948. Although President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1977, U.S. lawmakers never ratified it.

Resources in this context generally mean a government’s wealth and capacity. We measure resources by using per capita gross domestic product – the amount of money in a country evenly divided among its entire population. Because rich countries, like the U.S., can do more than lower-income countries, like Haiti, they are held to a higher standard.

So we don’t just ask how healthy, well-fed or educated the people of a country are. We ask how well a country is providing for its people compared with other countries with similar resources.

A 100% score means a country is doing all it can with what it has, and further improvements would require more resources. A lower score means there’s room for improvement.

Doing all you can with what you have doesn’t mean a government has to provide goods and services directly. Governments can rely on private businesses, employers, nonprofits, public programs or a combination. What we score is the result: Are people actually getting what they need?

We compared the scores of the U.S. over time against 37 other high-income free-market based countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a forum for industrialized economies to exchange information on the best policies and practices to support growth and development. Then we calculated how many Americans would be able to have these things if the U.S. adopted better policies.

Across all five areas we track – health, food, education, work and income – the U.S. has either stalled or lost ground, relative to its own history and to its peers.

Right to health

The U.S. ranks below its peer nations on health. Even Turkey and Hungary, less industrialized countries where the GDP per capita is a fraction of what it is in the U.S., have guaranteed better health outcomes for their people when compared to their resources.

Health scores indicate how well a country keeps its people alive and well, like whether children are born and stay healthy, whether adults live long lives and if the incidence of preventable diseases is kept low.

The U.S. scores about 80% of what it possibly could. By comparison, Canada scores 90%, Japan 88%, Mexico 86% and Australia 93%. Iceland scores the highest at 97%.

U.S. health scores have been relatively flat for a quarter century, rising from 79% in 2000 to a high of 82% in 2012. In 2023, it had receded to 80%. The rising scores were likely due to more Americans gaining health insurance following the Affordable Care Act’s rollout. The later decline was caused primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic.

We anticipate further declines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 11.8 million Americans would lose access to government-subsidized health insurance due to changes in the big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law in the summer of 2025. By 2034, that number is projected to rise to 17 million people.

Right to food

People who have realized the right to food and adequate nutrition can reliably access affordable, healthy and nutritious food.

Our score measures the percentage of people who find themselves in that situation. The U.S. is only achieving about 81% of what it possibly could.

If the United States allocated its resources more efficiently, we estimate that roughly 14.8 million more women and 9.1 million more men would always have enough healthy food.

Among countries for which we have food security data, the U.S. ranks 30th out of 37.

Our data for the right to food in the U.S. spans 2015 to 2023. The U.S. food score fell slightly during that period, from 81.9% to 81.1%. This means that as the U.S. got wealthier, Americans got hungrier.

This score peaked in 2020, before the pandemic. Persistent inflation, rising housing costs and changes to the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program led to declines.

Signs point to the share of Americans who have access to affordable and nutritious food declining further.

About 3.4 million people lost access to food assistance from September 2025 to June 2026, also due to cuts in Trump’s 2025 legislative package.

The effects are starker in some places. In Arizona, SNAP enrollment had fallen by about half as of April 2026, with more than 400,000 people losing benefits since July 2025. The Arizonans who were still getting SNAP benefits to help them buy groceries were receiving significantly lower benefits, ProPublica reported.

Right to dignified work and fair income

Can people find work? Do they earn enough to get by? That’s what we measured for this economic right.

We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. By that measure, the U.S. reaches just 27% of what a country this wealthy could achieve, which is the worst score for an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member country.

It does better at creating conditions where people can find a job, scoring about 75%, ranking 10th alongside countries like the Netherlands and Iceland. But it’s still far behind leaders like South Korea and Mexico.

If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. About 5 million more would escape extreme poverty, surviving on less than $4.20 per day.

The country has been losing ground on work and pay for 25 years. After accounting for how much richer the U.S. has grown, its score fell from about 62% in 2000 to 51% today. This reflects the growth in economic inequality, with the gains in wealth skewing toward the richest Americans.

Right to an education

The U.S. scores a 76% on the overall right to education, placing it 20th among 38 OECD countries. It’s behind Japan and the U.K. but ahead of some peers, including Canada and Norway.

We measure education through access – whether students are enrolled in school – and quality – how well they score on tests in science, math and reading.

The U.S. rates a score of 90.7% on access but only averages 61.3% on quality.

An unmet promise

The U.S. is among the wealthiest nations in human history, but it falls far short of what that national wealth makes possible for its people – in terms of health, food, pay and what its students learn.

The reason isn’t that the country can’t afford to do better; we’ve found it’s because the U.S. doesn’t turn that wealth into opportunities for everyone to have a decent life.

Recent cuts to health insurance coverage and food assistance are pushing much of what we measure in the wrong direction.

Promoting the general welfare was written into the country’s founding promise – 250 years later, our data shows how far there still is to go.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Stephen Bagwell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Susan Randolph, Associate Professor Emerita of Economics, University of Connecticut.

US Environmental Protections Under Attack: The NRC’s New NEPA Rule



 July 9, 2026


After more than a year of sweeping deregulation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) aimed at paving the way for accelerated deployment of so-called “advanced” reactors, the agency has released one of its most consequential rules yet: a sweeping rewrite of its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), known as Part 51. Released on July 7, 2026, the proposed rule would fundamentally change what environmental impacts the NRC must consider before licensing nuclear facilities.

This sweeping rewrite of the NRC’s NEPA regulations comes in direct response to President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14154, which required every federal agency to rewrite its NEPA regulations after the administration eliminated the government-wide NEPA rules previously issued by the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Since then, federal agencies including the Departments of Energy, Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Transportation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have all revised and weakened their NEPA procedures. The NRC’s proposed Part 51 rule is the latest step in that government-wide effort to dismantle longstanding environmental review requirements, following Project 2025’s blueprint for gutting NEPA through streamlined permitting, elimination of cumulative impact analysis, environmental justice, reduced public participation, restricted judicial review, and greater reliance on project applicants to prepare environmental reviews.

The NRC’s proposed rewrite of Part 51 would largely limit environmental review to radiological impacts while excluding most chemical and other non-radiological hazards. The NRC bases this major change on several court decisions that it argues restrict the agency’s authority.

Chemical Hazards Removed

Before NEPA, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) argued that its responsibilities were largely limited to radiological hazards. In the landmark case Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971), the court ruled that NEPA fundamentally changed those responsibilities by requiring the AEC to incorporate environmental values into its licensing decisions. The court held that the AEC was “not only permitted, but compelled, to take environmental values into account.” That decision became the legal foundation for more than fifty years of NRC environmental reviews that considered environmental impacts beyond radiation alone.

The NRC relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, where the federal government was approving a railroad in Utah. Environmental groups argued that the Environmental Impact Statement should also analyze future oil drilling, oil refining, and other industrial activities that might occur because the railroad would transport crude oil. The Supreme Court ruled that those separate “upstream” and “downstream” projects did not have to be analyzed as part of the railroad approval.

The NRC argues that the same reasoning allows it to exclude non-radiological chemical hazards from its own NEPA reviews, even when those chemicals are part of the very project the NRC is reviewing. That omission could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to provide a reasoned explanation when they make major changes to longstanding policy.

Oklo, an advanced nuclear company backed by Sam Altman and Peter Thiel, recently received a share of a $19 million Department of Energy award for advanced fuel reprocessing, or “recycling.” Oklo wants to commercialize spent-fuel reprocessing in the United States using pyroprocessing, a chemical process that separates reusable uranium and plutonium from highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel through electrorefining in molten salts using cadmium, a known human carcinogen. Using cadmium is not some separate upstream or downstream project; it is an essential ingredient of the pyroprocessing facility the NRC would be licensing. Under the proposed Part 51 rule, the NRC argues that it would no longer have to analyze the environmental risks associated with cadmium simply because they are considered non-radiological.

Another example is Valar Atomics, a nuclear startup company backed by Anduril founder Palmer Luckey and Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar. Valar was selected under the DOE’s Fuel Line Pilot Program, which authorizes it to build and operate its own TRISO fuel fabrication facility without an NRC license during the non-commercial phase. Valar’s fabrication process relies on hazardous industrial chemicals, including nitric acid to dissolve the uranium and ammonia to form the fuel kernels, along with reactive gases used to apply the ceramic coatings. Under the current rule, the storage, handling, emissions, and exposure risks of these non-radiological chemicals could be pulled into the environmental analysis for such a facility. Under the new rule, they would be exempt—only the radiological content of the uranium would fall within the NRC’s required review, leaving the chemical hazards of the fabrication process unexamined.

The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, where decades of chemical processing left behind a groundwater plume of trichloroethylene and other contaminants still being cleaned up today. (Photo: U.S. DOE)

History shows why chemicals matter in nuclear projects across the fuel cycle. Some of America’s worst nuclear environmental disasters were driven not by radiation alone, but by industrial chemicals used throughout the nuclear fuel cycle. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant are contaminated by massive groundwater plumes of trichloroethylene (TCE), along with PCBs, solvents, and other hazardous chemicals. The Hanford Site—one of the most contaminated places on Earth—faces cleanup not only from radioactive waste but also from enormous quantities of carbon tetrachloride, chromium, nitrates, heavy metals, solvents, and other industrial contaminants.

Cumulative Impacts Omitted

Just as telling as the changes the NRC proposes is what it leaves out: cumulative impact analysis. Traditionally, one of NEPA’s central purposes has been to ensure that agencies evaluate not only the impacts of an individual project, but also the combined effects of that project together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. A project that appears insignificant in isolation may have significant environmental consequences when those impacts are added together. The proposed Part 51 rule no longer requires cumulative impact analysis as part of either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Study.

The omission becomes even more significant when combined with the NRC’s proposed Part 57 licensing framework for “advanced” nuclear reactors. Part 57 would allow companies to deploy multiple identical reactors at the same site—or even across multiple sites—under a single construction permit and a single safety review of the reactor design rather than starting from scratch for every reactor. Part 57 governs how reactors are licensed; Part 51 governs what environmental impacts the NRC must analyze. Together, they determine what questions a large-scale reactor buildout actually has to answer.

Aalo Atomics is another advanced nuclear startup backed by Valor Equity Partners, whose investments include xAI and AI infrastructure. The company was selected by the Department of Energy to test its Aalo-X reactor at Idaho National Laboratory and is developing the Aalo Pod specifically to power AI data centers. Rather than deploying a single reactor, each Pod consists of five identical 10-megawatt sodium-cooled modular reactors connected to a single steam generator to produce 50 megawatts of electricity. The company has also stated that the design is intended to scale to even larger multi-reactor installations. Under Part 57, those reactors could be licensed under a single construction permit based on one reactor design. Yet under the proposed Part 51 rule, there is no requirement for the NRC to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of all five reactors operating together at one site—not the combined water use, the combined radiological source term, the combined waste inventory, the combined chemical inventories, or the total burden placed on the surrounding community.

A rendering of Aalo Atomics’ proposed “Aalo Pod” — five 10-megawatt sodium-cooled reactors sharing a single steam generator, designed to power AI data centers.

For decades, cumulative impact analysis has been one of the principal legal tools used by environmental organizations, Tribes, and local communities to challenge inadequate environmental reviews. Courts have repeatedly required agencies to consider the combined effects of related actions rather than evaluating projects one piece at a time. Removing cumulative impact analysis from Part 51 therefore does more than shorten environmental reviews—it eliminates one of the most important legal safeguards that has held agencies accountable under NEPA.

NEPA trumps Trump

Eliminating cumulative impact review and narrowing “effects” to radiation alone rests on shaky legal ground. The NRC’s attempt to gut environmental protections and public oversight of new nuclear projects on the strength of President Trump’s executive orders is a regulatory overreach and an abuse of its power. NEPA is law: before a federal agency approves a project, it must examine the environmental consequences from every aspect of the project itself. NEPA Law trumps Trump’s executive orders.

Submit your comments now. Your voice matters. Docket NRC–2025–0478

Comment deadline: August 21, 2026: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2025-0478

Lynda Williams is a physicist and environmental activist living in Hawaii. She can be found at scientainment.com and on Bluesky @lyndalovon.bksy.social