SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Simply put," said one critic, "the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signed a series of executive orders that will overhaul the independent federal agency that regulates the nation's nuclear power plants in order to speed the construction of new fissile reactors—a move that experts warned will increase safety risks.
According to a White House statement, Trump's directives "will usher in a nuclear energy renaissance," in part by allowing Department of Energy laboratories to conduct nuclear reactor design testing, green-lighting reactor construction on federal lands, and lifting regulatory barriers "by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue timely licensing decisions."
The Trump administration is seeking to shorten the yearslong NRC process of approving new licenses for nuclear power plants and reactors to withinf 18 months.
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident."
White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios said Friday that "over the last 30 years, we stopped building nuclear reactors in America—that ends now."
"We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy," he added.
However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned that the executive orders will result in "all but nullifying" the NRC's regulatory process, "undermining the independent federal agency's ability to develop and enforce safety and security requirements for commercial nuclear facilities."
"This push by the Trump administration to usurp much of the agency's autonomy as they seek to fast-ttrack the construction of nuclear plants will weaken critical, independent oversight of the U.S. nuclear industry and poses significant safety and security risks to the public," UCS added.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the UCS, said, "Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
"By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions," Lyman added. "Such a disaster will destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject U.S. nuclear technology for decades to come."
Friday's executive orders follow reporting earlier this month by NPR that revealed the Trump administration has tightened control over the NRC, in part by compelling the agency to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, called the move "the end of independence of the agency."
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident," Macfarlane warned.
On the first day of his second term, Trump also signed executive orders declaring a dubious "national energy emergency" and directing federal agencies to find ways to reduce regulatory roadblocks to "unleashing American energy," including by boosting fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The rapid advancement and adoption of artificial intelligence systems is creating a tremendous need for energy that proponents say can be met by nuclear power. The Three Mile Island nuclear plant—the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history—is being revived with funding from Microsoft, while Google parent company Alphabet, online retail giant Amazon, and Facebook owner Meta are among the competitors also investing in nuclear energy.
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, asked in December.
"Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health," Neumann added.
Given all the upheaval in today’s landscape, organizations must ensure they can reach their audiences in a multitude of ways, without relying on a single platform.
Nonprofits and advocacy groups are in the midst of a mounting crisis: Social media giants are growing more chaotic, untrustworthy, and dangerous.
Just consider what’s happened in the past few weeks. Without warning, explanation, or human review, Meta suspended the Instagram account of Presbyterian Outlook—a progressive, well-established news outlet for the Presbyterian Church. The outlet noted that it had thoughtfully invested in the platform to expand its reach, but would not return given the possibility of another abrupt cancellation.
Then, weeks later, X—which has been plagued by reports of increasing misinformation and amplifying far-right accounts—was hit with cybersecurity attacks that downed the platform.
Just as social media platforms revolutionized our world decades ago—we are in the midst of another pivotal technology movement.
And Meta recently announced that it would draw from X’s technology to employ “Community Notes” on its platforms—which are purportedly meant to fill in the gaps left after the company fired its fact-checking team. Experts have warned that such a system could easily be exploited by groups motivated by their own interests.
These events are just the latest in a growing pile of evidence that organizations and advocates can’t count on social media giants like they once did. They’re fueling misinformation, inflammatory perspectives, and partisan divisions—all in the name of profits.
To continue to be effective in our increasingly digital world, organizations will need to adjust to this new landscape.
Unquestionably, charting the path forward is challenging. Many organizations and advocates have spent years investing in and building profiles on established media platforms. These groups depend on this technology to share their messaging, organize, provide educational tools, fundraise, and more. It’s difficult to shift all these resources.
Other organizations have yet to build up a robust digital presence, but don’t know where to begin, especially in today’s chaotic climate.
Wherever nonprofits and advocates fall on this spectrum, they can and should invest in technology. Here’s how they can be most effective.
First, organizations must recognize that—just as social media platforms revolutionized our world decades ago—we are in the midst of another pivotal technology movement. Given all the upheaval in today’s landscape, organizations must ensure they can reach their audiences in a multitude of ways, without relying on a single platform.
As such, they should build out opportunities for subscription-based data creation. That means reinvesting in collecting more traditional contact methods—like emails and phone numbers. It also means investing in technologies that allow them to share their messages without censorship from outside sources. Blogs and newsletter platforms can be powerful tools to communicate with audiences and provide rich discourse free from external interference.
Protected digital communities—which are only open to certain groups or are invitation-based—can also help strengthen connections between an organization’s supporters. We’re starting to employ this strategy at the Technology, Innovation, and Digital Engagement Lab (TIDEL), which is housed at Union Theological Seminary. Right now, we’re working with a cohort of faith and social justice leaders to deploy new technology to advance their missions.
We’ve recommended a platform called Mighty Networks, which uses AI to help creators build and manage online communities. Two of our fellows are using this service to support Black clergywomen through education and practical application, focusing on mental health awareness and balance. Another pair of fellows is aiming to use the platform to deliver digitally-based educational programming and sustain a community of care professionals committed to improving access to spiritually integrated, trauma-informed care.
Make no mistake: Nonprofits and advocacy organizations need a digital presence to be effective. But they’ll have to adjust to shield themselves from the chaos and malice of social media giants.
"Our analysis would indicate that tax avoidance continues to be hard-wired into corporate structures," said the CEO of the Fair Tax Foundation.
A report published Tuesday to coincide with the tax filing deadline in the United States found that, over the past decade, six of the country's largest tech corporations have paid nearly $278 billion less in taxes than they should have under statutory tax rates worldwide.
The analysis by the Fair Tax Foundation (FTF) estimates that the so-called "Silicon Six"—Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Netflix, Apple, and Microsoft—paid an average corporate income tax rate of 18.8% on a combined $2.5 trillion in profits between 2015 and 2024.
That's well below the average statutory corporate tax rate during that period in the U.S. (29.7%) and globally (27%), resulting in a "tax gap" of $277.8 billion.
"Our analysis would indicate that tax avoidance continues to be hard-wired into corporate structures," said Paul Monaghan, FTF's chief executive officer. "The Silicon Six's corporate income tax contributions are, in percentage terms, way below what sectors such as banking and energy are paying in many parts of the world."
Of the six corporate behemoths examined in the report, Amazon is the worst tax offender, according to FTF—but all of the companies are guilty of what the group called "aggressive" practices to avoid taxation.
The companies have also benefited greatly from the foreign-derived intangible income tax break. FTF said that, thanks to the tax break, "much of the Silicon Six's overseas revenue is subject to 'tax haven' level rates" in the U.S.
"This is especially so at Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Netflix, where the foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) deduction reduced their effective tax rate by a substantial five percentage points each in 2024," the new analysis found. "The FDII has been worth $30 billion to the Silicon Six over the past three years alone."
The analysis comes as Republicans in the U.S. Congress and President Donald Trump work to advance another round of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthy Americans and large corporations. The Trump administration is also trying to gut the Internal Revenue Service with large-scale workforce cuts, which would further hinder the agency's ability to pursue rich tax cheats.
FTF's new report notes the "enormous political influence" that the Silicon Six exert to preserve and enhance their tax benefits: The six companies spent a combined $115 million lobbying the U.S. government and the European Union last year.
To prevent corporate tax avoidance that is costing governments around the world billions of dollars in revenue that could be spent on education, healthcare, and other priorities, FTF said the U.S. should "end the FDII tax break" and back a 15% global minimum tax on multinational corporations.
In February, Trump withdrew the U.S. from a tax agreement that included a global minimum levy.
FTF also urged other governments to "give more serious consideration to the degree to which the Silicon Six's overseas revenue is subject to low levels of corporate income tax and develop more assertive responses to ensure that a fairer tax contribution is secured and so that more equitable business competition can operate within their jurisdictions."