SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear weapons
Trump, Nukes, AI, and Civilizational Suicide
The man who calls an existential threat nothing but a "hoax," proves himself a maniac—which makes us sitting ducks.
Sep 22, 2026
As human beings we have always been sitting ducks to extinction’s cosmic whims. We are a few astronomical units away from a life-ending meteor or comet strike, the kind that wiped out the dinosaurs after they were their own animal kingdom for a couple of hundred million years. Nothing we can do about that.
For the brief time human beings have roamed the earth–less than five seconds if earth’s history were a 24-hour clock–we’ve shown nearly equal aptitude and enthusiasm for reproducing, and for suicide. Aptitude for reproduction is nothing special. As Cole Porter put it, birds, bees and even fleas do it. But you have to be human to know suicide, by which I mean the act of engaging in knowing self-destruction, as most wars of recorded and (easy to guess) unrecorded history of the last 100,000 years have been.
Those mass suicides have ended tribes, empires and civilizations, but so far not humanity itself. It is only since 1945 that we’ve acquired that skill. A global nuclear war today would end life on the planet, which would become “a republic of insects and grass,” as Jonathan Schell, the Cole Porter of nukes, put it in The Fate of the Earth (1982).
There’s a cynical glibness to how the anxieties are being dismissed as just the latest chicken-little scenario.
Nuclear war was the top public concern of 1985, even ahead of unemployment, which averaged above 6 percent all year. We worried, we debated, and to Gorbachev’s and Reagan’s credit, in that order, we got a start on arms control deals that improved with time, at least until Obama, Trump and Putin decided to bring us back near the brink, where we are now: the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ famous Doomsday Clock is at 85 seconds to midnight, “the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history.” Almost half of Americans think a nuclear war is likely in the coming decade, though they don’t seem to be too concerned about it, as if it were something they might still get to watch on TV: This year’s list of top concerns doesn’t even include nukes.
Since the 19th century we’d been developing a new method of global suicide, only we didn’t know it until June 23, 1988, when NASA’s James Hansen testified to Congress that “the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” The implication was that global warming was a threat, but not yet a life-ending threat. Hansen and other panelists before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee happened to speak on a day when temperatures in the Washington, D.C. area neared 100. He predicted that 1988 would prove to be the warmest year on record. It was, though the record was short-lived, as have near-annual new records since. The panel said the world had, with reasonable and prudent policies, time to respond.
It didn’t. For decades the world has been aiming to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.5 Fahrenheit), above pre-industrial levels, the threshold climate accords had said we cannot safely cross. We will overshoot the target by the end of the decade. That’s not bad news just for a few Pacific islanders, but for places like Flagler Beach as seas continue to rise: that extra 10 feet the designers added to the new pier opening in a few months may not look so high in a few decades.
We’ve known since 1988 that warming is an existential threat to humanity. It is now our third means of civilizational suicide. As with wars and nukes, it’s still controllable. The solution has always been in our hands.
We now have yet another existential threat to humanity, and this one, like meteors, may soon be out of our control: artificial intelligence. Unlike meteors, the chances of extinction are not near zero. Anthropic’s Evan Hubinger warns there is a greater than 10% chance AI could kill all humans within the next ten years if unregulated. You don’t have to be a genius to understand how dangerous and already out of control your peppy AI bots are. If you use anything like Gemini or ChatGPT, you know that they hallucinate and fabricate, they mislead, they get an attitude, and they double down to hide their mistakes. Every day we’re learning of dangerous AI hacking their human creators never anticipated. Let’s hope they don’t know their way to the nuclear codes.
There’s a cynical glibness to how the anxieties are being dismissed as just the latest chicken-little scenario. I was surprised to hear even my usually more prudent colleague Brian McMillan claiming on the radio Friday that he “can’t tell whether that’s Y2K-scare level or not,” and calling fears an “extrapolation.” I don’t know how a reportedly informed journalist can make that analysis when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei last week called for a pause in the technology’s development, as did OpenAI’s Sam Altman, SpaceX’s Elon Musk, Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis.
Every day we’re learning of dangerous AI hacking their human creators never anticipated. Let’s hope they don’t know their way to the nuclear codes.
These men hate each other. They all agree that differences must be set aside to build guardrails–on their business. I don’t know that you can point to an instance in American history when the chief executives of their own companies called on regulatory guardrails about their own product, when you could so easily “extrapolate,” to use Brian’s word, from their fears that they don’t trust their own product. Nor do they trust each other to singly address the crisis, knowing what they know of their product and of themselves.
As a New York Times report explained it, “A.I. leaders are girding themselves for a day when an A.I. system can rely on itself to grow more advanced rather than requiring the aid of human researchers. This dynamic, which computer scientists call ‘recursive self improvement,’ is what some top A.I. developers believe may lead to the software spinning out of their control.”
The technology is new. The existential crisis is not. Oppenheimer, Szilard, Bohr, Einstein and many other scientists involved or not in the Manhattan Project that developed the first atom bombs campaigned for guardrails about what they’d wrought, but the company they were working for (Einstein wasn’t) was the American government, and their audience were the American and Soviet public–similar to the AI industry’s audience now.
As a matter of self-defense, AI is the most important scientific, ethical and moral priority of the day. We can leave the ethics and morality of it to philosophers, theologians and academics. The science is our era’s Manhattan Project. As with the Manhattan Project, the only unifying and resource-ready force to build and enforce guardrails and draft other countries to do likewise is not Anthropic or Space X. It is government, guided by reason and the better angels of our history.
Of course I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t think the AI industry knows. Not yet, anyway. This is a collective effort that requires the pooling of unimaginable thought and resources. But we have guides, we have principles.
“Even if the universe should crush him, man would still be nobler than his destroyer because he knows that he dies and he knows the advantage which the universe has over him,” Pascal wrote four centuries ago. “The universe does not know these things.” Substitute “AI” for the “universe,” and Pascal was onto something: “All our dignity, then, consists in thought. By thought we must raise ourselves, he wrote. “Let us labor, then, to think well: that is the principle of morality.”
We don’t have a solution. But we know the essentials: we know how to get there. The rest is just thought, it’s just raising ourselves.
Instead, we are once again being debased. Donald Trump and his congressional harem now call the AI crisis a hoax. We knew they were immoral. We refused to know they would be suicidal. To his credit, Trump once fast-tracked the Covid vaccine. He has it in him, and could do with AI what he did with the vaccine, at warp speed. Instead, he is slow-walking us to a potential catastrophe as uncontrollable as a nuclear weapon’s chain reaction.
He is our dinosaur in chief, and we’re all sitting ducks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In a World of Nukes and Climate Emergency, Knowledge Is Survival
We cannot pursue solutions to the nuclear and global warming threats amid confusion, myths, half-truths, and a lack of basic understanding of facts.
Sep 20, 2026
The current state of our world has repeatedly been described as one of the most challenging moments since the end of World War II and certainly since the end of the Cold War. We are bombarded daily by the devastating and terrifying news of wars raging in the Middle East and Ukraine; global warming inducing unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, glacial collapse, and floods; and more recently reports and debates surrounding the existential risk that artificial intelligence may present to humanity. How we address this seeming state of permanent crisis may not just be a matter of humanity’s ability to thrive into the future, but actually survive.
Two of the current threats that have seemingly disparate time scales and geographical footprints, and even differences as to whether they would make the world unlivable by way of decreased or increased temperatures, are nuclear war and global warming. And yet, in both cases, we are dealing with human-made problems that humans can resolve, with some work, yes, but certainly nothing insurmountable. The answer to the nuclear threat is the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the answer to the global warming threat is the remaking of how we produce and use energy to move away from burning fossil fuels. Arguably, the biggest impediment to the solutions to both crises are the false narratives that are advanced for the sake of power, profit, and dominance. We simply cannot agree on the solutions, let alone implement them, if we do not understand what is at stake when it comes to nuclear war and global warming.
The nuclear war threat has been with us since the dawn of the nuclear age. In 1946, when just one country, the United States, had a handful of atomic bombs, Albert Einstein wrote that the “unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift to unparalleled catastrophe.” Einstein understood right away that: (1) the nuclear weapon threat was not going to reach its culmination with the destruction of individual cities the way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed but something far greater and more catastrophic—he called it unparalleled catastrophe; and (2) what was needed was to change our modes of thinking—meaning that peace, cooperation, and a genuine fraternity among nations were needed in the nuclear age to ensure that the unparalleled catastrophe would not come to pass.
Alongside of the ever-present nuclear “sword of Damocles,” we have a planet that is warming and doing so very quickly, with the increase in temperatures creating numerous other climatic and environmental changes,
Eighty years after Einstein’s prophetic words, nine countries possess more than 12,000 atomic bombs and much more powerful hydrogen bombs, most of which make the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like child’s play. Even if the world were relatively peaceful, which it is not, these weapons would continue to hold us hostage to the threat of ultimate destruction, even just from accidents or misunderstandings or miscalculations. This is at least in part due to some of the current policies of nuclear-armed states, like hair-trigger alert, or readiness to launch nuclear weapons in a matter of a few minutes, and launch-on-warning, or readiness to launch nuclear weapons in response to a warning of a strike, not an actual strike, not to mention the advances in delivery vehicles of these weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the history of the nuclear age is full of incidents in which nuclear weapons could have been launched, with all indications pointing to nuclear war as the outcome of even an accidental nuclear explosion. Today, a time of widespread conflicts, the danger is not just a blunder into nuclear war, but even a deliberate use of nuclear weapons.
What is at stake in a nuclear war?
- Millions of people if not hundreds of millions dying in cities and nations that are attacked depending on who exactly is involved. Many of those deaths would occur instantly at the moment of the explosion.
- Radiation spreading across the globe within hours, days, weeks, and months in ways that will threaten the health and survival far outside the countries that are attacked.
- Quick onset of nuclear winter, with large drops in temperature that result in widespread failure of food production and subsequent famine that threatens the life of billions of people.
- Ozone layer destruction that will further reduce our ability to produce food and make even the farthest reaches of the planet potentially uninhabitable due to the high levels of UV radiation.
What we are facing is the unparalleled catastrophe that Einstein warned about. And for a variety of reasons, it remains largely out of the public’s consciousness, invisible, and yet all too real, especially today when there are, according to the Geneva Academy, over 100 armed conflicts around the world, including 24 international armed conflicts involving two or more nation states. Two play a prominent role—the war in Ukraine, which has been described as a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and the US and Israel war on Iran. In both wars, nuclear weapons have featured prominently, not just as the underlying justification for conflict, as the US and Israel have claimed about Iran’s potential to build a nuclear weapon, but also via direct and indirect threats, including by President Donald Trump on April 7 of this year, that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Although the history of the nuclear age is full of examples of US presidents contemplating or outright threatening to use nuclear weapons in previous conflicts, we seem to have reached a novel stage of danger, risk, and complexity.
Alongside of the ever-present nuclear “sword of Damocles,” we have a planet that is warming and doing so very quickly, with the increase in temperatures creating numerous other climatic and environmental changes, including sea-level rise, wildfires, droughts, and more. We have watched and experienced some of these impacts in horror even just this summer, including the heatwave and wildfires in Europe and the glacier collapse and floods in Nepal and China. A commenter to a Geopolitical Economist Hour podcast episode where I spoke about the climate threat with the host, Radhika Desai, wrote, “In British Columbia, we no longer have summer season, we just have fire season,” which sums up the situation rather succinctly.
Why is the globe warming? The globe is warming because we humans are burning fossil fuels, which release additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere and raising the temperature across the planet, albeit in uneven ways. For example, Europe has been warming at twice the rate of global temperature increases, and the Arctic is warming at nearly three times the rate of global temperature rise. Combined with the complexity of climate, streams, weather patterns, and more, this will continue to lead to widespread negative consequences across the globe, in fits and starts with devastating local and regional implications. Wildfire smoke spreading far and wide, for example, will ensure that even the regions least prone to impact will not be safe. No corner of the Earth will be unaffected.
Genuine solutions exist. In 1986, the world had more than 70,000 nuclear warheads and over the next 30 years, managed to eliminate more than 80% of them. Energy transformation solutions exist, and China, for one, has been employing them rapidly and effectively over the last few years. But we cannot pursue solutions amid confusion, myths, half-truths, and lack of even a basic understanding of facts.
Neither of these issues will be properly addressed with blind faith in a narrative. They will be resolved when ordinary people and elected leaders alike take up the hard task of understanding the issues and then discussing the solutions that are right for their communities, nation states, and the world as a whole. Knowledge is often considered to mean power. In this case, it may just mean survival.
A modified portion of these remarks was delivered during a webinar entitled Permanent Crisis? Permanent War? Who wants it? Who benefits? Who cares? with professors Radhika Desai, Ivana Nikolic Hughes, Fadhel Kaboub, Steve Keen, Jeffrey Sachs, and Genevieve Vaughan; chaired by Rajani Kanth, for the Global Political Economy channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHarGYBto9A
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donald Trump Is Laughing All the Way to the Bank... at the End of the World
By embracing fossil fuels and shutting down renewable energy, “our” president is making a fortune off end-of-the-world policies. Think of him, in fact, not figuratively, but all too literally, as the president from hell.
Sep 10, 2026
Honestly, I don’t think we really get it yet.
Let’s face it. It’s going to be hot, hot, hot. Or do I mean hotter, hotter, hotter, or even hottest, hottest, hottest, or someday, for all we know, beyond any words we might now have to describe it.
Though it seldom seems that way in the daily news, we’re talking about a genuinely apocalyptic possibility. Give us human beings full credit. Somehow, we’ve managed to come up with not one but two distinctly apocalyptic ways to potentially destroy ourselves and this planet—one a relatively speedy way to go and the other already operating in world-destroying slow motion—and that, believe me, is no small thing.
Here are just a few examples of that slow-motion version of our self-destruction on this increasingly extreme planet of... well, can I really say “ours” anymore, or should I say theirs?
The Don is indeed an atomic bomb or at least a climate bomb of a president his second time around.
Of course, Europe has recently experienced remarkably extreme temperatures and scorching fires across significant parts of the continent (heat estimated to have resulted in at least 16,000 extra deaths—and no, that is not a misprint—at its high point in June and at least 35,000 across the whole summer). Western Europe, in fact, experienced the hottest June on record. And that (or worse) is increasingly likely to be an every-summer event for what’s now the fastest-warming continent on this planet.
And don’t forget that the predicted El Niño in the Pacific beginning this fall, expected to be the strongest in more than a century, or a “Godzilla” event (if you happen to remember your movie dinosaurs), is likely to heat significant parts of the planet even more severely. (Oh, and in case you missed it, it’s not just the land that’s getting ever hotter. This August, the world’s oceans hit their hottest temperature ever—yes, ever!—adding, of course, to sea level rise and the further flooding of coastal communities.)
And sadly enough, we just can’t seem to stop, can we? Worse yet, humanity’s latest brilliant invention-discovery—artificial intelligence—may someday have to be relabeled artificial stupidity (of the first order), given that the production of AI is, it seems, going to involve pouring staggering amounts of—yes, of course!—fossil fuels into our already overheating atmosphere. As environmental expert Bill McKibben put it recently, “The planned data center buildout will increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by at least 20%, and perhaps as much as a third.”
In truth, you’ve got to hand it to us humans when it comes to utter self-destructiveness (and I’m not even thinking about our never-ending, devastating wars from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan and Somalia that also pour endless fossil fuels into the atmosphere, as does the US military).
A Global Disaster That Needs a New Name
You would think, of course, that, faced with what’s likely to happen in the years to come, humanity might have responded by working ever harder to bring our fossil-fuel usage under control. But not much such luck there, of course. After all, China, the country that has moved in the most significant fashion on climate change by figuring out how to produce ever more green energy and sell globally the mechanisms—solar panels, batteries, and wind turbine equipment—that make it (as well as stunning numbers of electric vehicles), continues to pour the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of any place on Earth.
And though other countries are indeed beginning to try to switch to green power, when you look at this endangered planet of ours, explain to me how, in 2024, the American people by a slight majority (even if not quite 50% of the vote) managed to reelect as president one Donald J. Trump, a climate-change denier of the first order. And in his second term in office, he’s focused as much attention as he’s capable of focusing (which, of course, is a distinctly limited amount) on blocking wind and solar projects while promoting ever more fossil-fuel production of every kind. (And of course, in the process, he’s brilliantly ceding the vast and growing green-energy sales market to that other superpower, China.)
Let me guarantee you one thing: Someday, when it comes to the overheating of this world of ours, he will be seen as an almost unparalleled idiot, assuming that anybody then is seeing much of anything.
Consider climate change, in fact, a potential global disaster that deserves a far more horrifying name. And consider it just the latest form of (in)human warfare to come to our attention, this time against the planet itself as a livable place for us. And consider it as well no small thing that we humans have indeed produced a second way to essentially destroy this planet and ourselves.
A Climate Bomb of a President
As for that first one, it’s still unsettling to think about the way the United States developed the atomic bomb and then used it twice in August 1945 to devastate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and end World War II in the Pacific. And those first two bombs did indeed represent, all too literally (or do I mean figuratively?), something new on this planet that, until that moment, had only been a dystopian fantasy—the possible future ability of humanity to totally devastate this planet of ours? In fact, given human history, consider it little short of a miracle that, 80 years later, with at least nine countries now possessing atomic weapons, often in significant quantities—there are now an estimated 12,000 such weapons on planet Earth—one has never been used again in wartime (although more than 2,000 have been detonated in atomic tests in what still passes for peacetime).
And there can be little question that, were an atomic war to break out between any of the great (or even lesser) powers on this planet, we could indeed find ourselves thoroughly devastated.
Now, give us humans distinct credit since, having developed a first way to functionally do in this planet of ours and ourselves, we then came up with a completely separate, distinctly slow-motion version of planetary destruction via our use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—to pour what have come to be known as greenhouse gases that trap heat into the atmosphere, potentially broiling this planet in a process that’s come to be known all too mildly as—yes!—“climate change.” (Think of it, in fact, as a slow-motion version of atomic warfare happening right before our eyes every moment of every day.)
And unfortunately, when it became ever more obvious that this was indeed another way to do this planet in, the response was sadly all too different from atomic weaponry, with the urge to stop it proving far milder than it should be.
And of course, in 2024, Americans did indeed vote to reelect a presidential candidate all too literally committed to broiling this planet of ours (as, by the way, is Vladimir Putin, the ruler of one of the other great powers on this planet). Yes, the Don is indeed an atomic bomb or at least a climate bomb of a president his second time around. And don’t forget that, this time, among the donors celebrating his victory and inauguration with giant financial contributions was oil company Chevron with $500,000. (In fact, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has reported that, overall, oil companies invested $5 million in that inauguration alone—and even that may be a low estimate.)
And yes, his second time in office he did also launch his own version of a global nuclear arms race, but that, sadly, is the least of it, since he’s distinctly determined to release ever more fossil fuels into our world, while doing anything he can to shut down wind power, in particular. Oh, and don’t forget that, amid all the climate chaos and—thanks to his war on Iran—fossil fuel chaos as well, he continues to make a fortune (as much as $15.5 million or a nearly 40% rise since January) from fossil fuel stocks he owns, including shares in ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. And more are evidently still being purchased for him.
And all of that is a reality of our world even as, thanks to his war with Iran, American drivers continue to pay ever more for their gas. And with that new El Niño climate pattern already on the all-too-literal horizon and guaranteed to wildly overheat the Pacific Ocean, starting this fall, this planet is only going to get hotter yet. That coming “Godzilla” event could, as The Guardian reports, “push about 50 million people worldwide into acute hunger before the end of next year.”
In short, “our” president is making a fortune off end-of-the-world policies. Think of him, in fact, not figuratively, but all too literally, as the president from hell.
And if you want to add to the potentially world-ending nightmares of this planet at this very moment, keep in mind that, over its long history, humanity has proven all too brilliant when it comes to destruction. So don’t for a second imagine that there isn’t, in fact, a third (or even a fourth) way to do us all in still waiting to be discovered just over (or under?) the present horizon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
JD Vance Says If His Work With Trump 'Leads to the End Times' That Is 'OK'
"Show this clip to anyone who says Iran is run by religious lunatics," responded one podcaster.
Sep 01, 2026
Shortly before US President Donald Trump on Tuesday spurred fresh fears that he'll use nuclear weapons in his illegal war on Iran, Vice President JD Vance told a Christian podcaster that he's fine with the administration's work leading to the end times.
"Do I think that we're in the end times? I don't know," Vance told 22-year-old podcaster Bryce Crawford nearly an hour into a lengthy video interview released Monday. While admitting his fascination with the theories, the VP said that "I think that it's probably bad for me, spiritually, to focus too much on it."
As The New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling explained: "The Christian end times refer to the religion's interpretations of the final days of humanity. That's detailed in the Bible as a period involving widespread turmoil and deception (such as wars, earthquakes, and a false prophet), a seven-year stretch of unprecedented hardship known as the Great Tribulation that will end in Armageddon, the emergence of the Antichrist and a cadre of their followers who reject Christ's teachings, and a final judgment by God."
As Vance sat beside a propped-up edition of his new book on his religious journey, including his conversion to Catholicism, he said that "I think that there are... things about the world that make me feel like not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us, but again, I try not to focus too much on it."
"One of the things that I think that Catholics are very focused on, that I think is very good for me, is this idea that... we don't know when God is coming, but we're commanded to try to, as much as possible, try to make the world the kind of world that God wants it to be," the vice president continued.
"While I wouldn't be shocked if we are living in the end times," he added, "what I'm trying to focus on is doing as much of God's work as possible right now, and if that leads to the end times, OK, and if that leads to, you know, us building a better world that thrives and survives for a very long time after I'm gone, that's great, too."
Those remarks—from a man expected to compete with figures such as Donald Trump Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the GOP's 2028 presidential nomination, if the president doesn't try for an unconstitutional third term—were met with alarm.
Critics wrote that "this should concern us all" and wondered: "WTF does that mean? Is he OK with using nuclear weapons?"
Sharing a clip of Vance's comments on social media, Iranian-American writer Alex Shams noted that "these guys are trying to convince you Iran is ruled by a crazed messianic theocracy."
Podcaster and writer Katie Halper said, "Show this clip to anyone who says Iran is run by religious lunatics."
As Vance's video interview began circulating on Monday, over six months into the Iran War, a reporter in the Oval Office asked Trump if he's ruled out using a nuclear weapon against the Mideast country.
While suggesting he has ruled out nuclear war, Trump also said: "What a stupid question that is, actually. Here they are, they're totally defeated militarily, so now I defeat them, and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them?"
Just a day later, Trump triggered speculation that he'll pursue a nuclear attack. On Tuesday, while bombing alleged Iranian military targets, he wrote on his Truth Social platform, "If the failed Nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level, but it will not be the biggest attack of them all, that is waiting in the wings and, when it is over, there will be very little left of the Islamic Republic of Iran!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Issues New Mass Murder Threat, Warning Iran of 'Biggest Attack of Them All'
The president's threat came just a day after he appeared to rule out using nuclear weapons.
Sep 01, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued yet another unhinged threat to commit mass murder as the US military restarted its illegal bombing campaign against Iran.
In a Truth Social post, the president warned Iran against striking back at the US shortly after American forces began bombing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets in the country.
"If the failed Nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level," Trump wrote, then ominously added that "it will not be the biggest attack of them all, that is waiting in the wings and, when it is over, there will be very little left of the Islamic Republic of Iran!"
Iran appeared undeterred by Trump's saber-rattling, however, as The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the country retaliated by launching missiles and drones shortly after the US attack.
On Monday, a reporter in the Oval Office asked the president if he would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran, and he appeared to rule it out.
"There's no reason for it," Trump said. "What a stupid question that is, actually. Here they are, they're totally defeated militarily, so now I defeat them and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them?"
"Have you ruled out using a nuclear weapon against Iran?"@POTUS: "They're totally defeated militarily — so I defeat them and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them? What a stupid question." pic.twitter.com/Gv9dXAJ9Zu
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 31, 2026
In April, Trump issued a similarly unhinged threat to commit mass murder in Iran, warning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" unless Iran surrendered to the US. Trump backed down from that threat hours later and agreed to a since-expired ceasefire agreement with Iran.
Brett Erickson, managing partner at Obsidian Risk Advisors, warned in a Tuesday social media post that the president's threats should not be dismissed simply because he hasn't followed through on them in the past.
"Throughout this entire war, I have been incredibly skeptical of any claims that President Trump is so much as DISCUSSING the use of nuclear weapons," Erickson wrote. "This reads to me clear as day that they are on the table now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nuclear Bomb Took My Arms Before I Was Born; We Must Not Let One Take Our Future
I want to be among the last people whose bodies carry the legacy of the nuclear age; whether I am depends on decisions that are still within our reach.
Aug 29, 2026
I paint with a brush held between my teeth or my toes. I was born without arms in 1968 about 100 kilometers from the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in eastern Kazakhstan. My parents’ generation watched mushroom clouds rise over the steppe without being told what the explosions could do to their bodies or their children.
For four decades, the Soviet Union conducted more than 450 nuclear tests at Semipalatinsk. The fallout left cancers, disabilities, trauma, and contaminated land. Today, when leaders discuss nuclear weapons in the language of “deterrence” and “strategic balance,” I think of families paying for decisions in which they had no voice. The bomb is not an abstraction to me. Its history is written on my body.
August 29 carries two memories. On that date in 1949, the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic device at Semipalatinsk. On the same date in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the test site. At Kazakhstan’s initiative, the United Nations later proclaimed August 29 the International Day against Nuclear Tests. It is not simply a day of commemoration. It is a warning from the past about choices being made now.
In 2026, that warning is urgent. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that the world began this year with 12,187 nuclear warheads. All nine nuclear-armed states continued strengthening their arsenals last year, while up to 2,200 warheads remained on high operational alert. In February, New START, the last treaty limiting the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia, expired without a successor. In May, the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ended without consensus for the third consecutive time.
I paint the future I want to see: clean land, an unthreatened sky, and children born without the burden my generation inherited.
The world is not merely failing to disarm. It is learning to rely on the bomb again. There is growing rhetoric that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of peace and security. In moments of heightened tension, some states and strategic thinkers argue that only nuclear capability can prevent coercion, deter conflict, or preserve sovereignty. This logic of “nuclear reassurance” is being normalized not only in official doctrine but in public debate, where deterrence is recast as stability and restraint is portrayed as risk. Yet this framing erodes the very foundation of non-proliferation. It suggests that safety flows from the possession of the most destructive weapons ever created, rather than from law, diplomacy, and mutual restraint.
A non-proliferation system cannot endure if abstinence is portrayed as vulnerability while possession is equated with safety and status. The NPT rests on a bargain: Non-nuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon states undertake to pursue disarmament. Both sides must keep their word. Rules cannot bind the weak and excuse the powerful.
Kazakhstan chose another logic. When we became independent, 1,410 Soviet strategic nuclear warheads remained on our territory, giving us what was then the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. We could have treated them as a shortcut to status or a shield against an uncertain future. Instead, a society that knew the price of radiation demanded a different kind of security. We closed Semipalatinsk, relinquished the weapons, and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear state. That choice did not erase the damage, but it showed that renunciation can be an act of sovereignty and strength.
Kazakhstan has tried to turn that experience into institutions. We helped establish the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and host the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Low Enriched Uranium Bank.
Our message is not “no” to nuclear science. Peaceful nuclear energy, subject to rigorous safeguards, can serve human development. It is “no” to weapons whose effects no border, hospital, or government can control.
The immediate path is clear. The nine remaining states whose ratification is required must bring the test-ban treaty into force. The United States and Russia must negotiate new verifiable limits, and all nuclear-armed states must join the work of reduction. Iran and the United States must restore full IAEA access through an enforceable agreement. More countries should join the prohibition treaty, while nuclear-armed states should engage with it even before they are ready to accede. Nations must also fund healthcare, victim assistance, and environmental repair. Disarmament cannot speak only about the future while abandoning those living with the past.
Some will call a world without nuclear weapons naive. I have learned what is truly naive: believing that thousands of warheads can remain ready for use indefinitely without error, miscalculation, rage, or technical failure. Deterrence requires every leader to remain rational, every warning system to be accurate, and every crisis to stay controlled—forever. Humanity has never met such a standard.
An artist begins with a blank canvas and believes another reality can be created. I paint the future I want to see: clean land, an unthreatened sky, and children born without the burden my generation inherited.
I want to be among the last people whose bodies carry the legacy of the nuclear age. Whether I am depends on decisions that are still within our reach. Kazakhstan turned away from the bomb. The world can do so too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Bringing Cancer Potential to a Community Near You
Under pressure to expand nuclear energy production, the commission has proposed weakening standards protecting workers and communities from radiation exposure.
Aug 27, 2026
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, whose mission is to protect public health and safety regarding nuclear energy, has now transformed into an agency, as so many have under the current administration, to support the nuclear industry and its billionaire backers. Following other captured federal agencies like the Department of Energy, which is variably led by individuals from the very industries it is intended to regulate, the NRC is under pressure from the president to facilitate the quadrupling of nuclear energy production by 2050. This is to be accomplished by fast-tracking the licensure and building of reactors while discarding the nuclear radiation exposure safety measures in place for decades as these are seen to be onerous and financially burdensome to the industry.
The current safety standard for nuclear exposure comes from the BEIR VII (Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation) study. This was produced by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and concluded that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation exposure above background, noting that any excess exposure above background increases the risk to human health of cancer, and other diseases associated with nuclear exposure. This is the so-called Linear No Threshold, LNT, theory. This theory is the basis for the core precautionary safety principle and risk management approach used in the fields of ionizing radiation exposure from medicine and dentistry to nuclear energy referred to as “ALARA,” or "As Low As Reasonably Achievable.”
The problem that exists, even with current standards of radiation exposure allowance, is that they are based on the “Reference Man,” which is a 25-to-30-year-old 70 kilogram man. This androcentric standard totally disregards the fact that the majority of humanity is not represented by this standard, and that children, females, pregnant women, and the elderly are more sensitive to radioactivity exposure. In addition workers involved throughout the entire nuclear cycle are at increased risk from exposure. Furthermore, a recent Harvard study demonstrated increased cancer rates in the communities surrounding nuclear power plants within ~18.5 miles.
The current NRC proposal plans to do away with ALARA while purportedly supporting the LNT. This flies in the face of reason and is duplicitous as LNT is the basis of ALARA. Their plan is to substitute an unproven “graded approach” allowing workers to be exposed to near the regulatory limits and then taking added measures so as not to exceed it. They propose allowing the exceeding of exposure limits under “certain circumstances” setting up a banking system from subsequent year allowances amortizing over five years. They have even invoked the controversial unproven hypothesis of “Radiation Hormesis,” which proposes that a small amount of radiation causing cellular damage will stimulate cellular repair, as though to say what does not kill you, is good for you. Remember LNT.
The current proposal does just the opposite unless we stop it from moving forward. The NRC is providing a limited public comment period on this proposal which ends at midnight on August 31.
Furthermore, when implemented, these new regulations will most likely be used to reduce the already weak cleanup standards, further increasing the health risks to impacted communities contaminated from our nuclear legacy and history. These include communities such as the South Carolina Savannah River Site and New Mexico Los Alamos Nuclear Lab and Trinity Test Site to the Navajo Nation mining sites, Hanford Washington site, Nevada Test Site, St Louis Cold Water Creek, Parks Township (Pennsylvani), Rocky Flats Site near Denver, and the Santa Susana Field Lab near Los Angeles, among others.
The rationale for this current proposal is to facilitate the fast-tracking of nuclear power for the uncontrolled growth of data centers (with 1,500 new data centers currently in development), artificial intelligence, additional large commercial nuclear power plants, and new plutonium pits that are the nuclear trigger of nuclear weapons, reminding us that nuclear power remains the cover story for nuclear weapons.
The potential health risks of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, cognitive defects, thyroid and endocrine disorders, genetic mutations, and infertility are all related to ionizing radiation exposure. These are risks lasting for generations, passed on from one generation to the next. Yet, these health effects do not have to be and can be prevented if we demand the strengthening of current radiation exposure guidelines. The current proposal does just the opposite unless we stop it from moving forward. The NRC is providing a limited public comment period on this proposal which ends at midnight on August 31. Your comment is critical and can be submitted at federalregister.gov. More information can be found at www.protectbetter.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Markey to Congress: Block Trump-Saudi Deal, a 'Starting Gun for a Middle East Nuclear Arms Race'
"This is not diplomacy; this is corruption at the expense of US national security."
Aug 26, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday sent his proposed nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia to Congress, and a leading Senate Democrat responded on Wednesday with a call for his colleagues to "block this dangerous deal."
That call came from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), co-chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group.
The 30-year deal was reached in July. It would allow US companies to share nuclear energy technology with Saudi Arabia, without safeguards to ensure that the Middle East kingdom would not use the materials to build nuclear weapons.
Following the White House submission to Congress, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, lawmakers have 90 days of continuous session to review the pact—as required by Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act—and either object or let it take effect.
Since US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman signed the deal in July, nonproliferation experts have expressed concerns. Kelsey Davenport from the Arms Control Association said at the time that the "inadequate" deal "sets a terrible precedent" because it "goes against long-standing bipartisan support for negotiating nuclear cooperation agreements that prohibit enrichment and reprocessing," and "Congress should vote to disapprove it."
Markey echoed expert concerns on Wednesday. He said that "as a US senator, Marco Rubio once understood that handing Saudi Arabia the technology to produce nuclear weapons was a terrible idea. But now, as secretary of state, Rubio is doing exactly that, and he and Trump are pursuing the most reckless nuclear deal in US history."
"This giveaway to Saudi Arabia is the starting gun for a Middle East nuclear arms race," he argued. "Congress must reject it."
Markey also said that "if the Trump administration wants to stop a Saudi bomb, it should require the nonproliferation gold standard, which would ban enrichment and reprocessing and require International Atomic Energy Agency additional protocol safeguards in Saudi Arabia. If Riyadh did not want a bomb, it would accept the gold standard. But the opposite is happening."
"Why? Maybe we should ask Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman, who has said repeatedly that he wants a nuclear bomb," the senator suggested, before taking aim at the president's son-in-law. "Or maybe we should ask Jared Kushner, who accepted a $2 billion investment from a Saudi sovereign wealth fund after leaving the White House at the end of the first Trump administration."
"This is not diplomacy; this is corruption at the expense of US national security," Markey concluded. "Congress must stop this dangerous agreement before it triggers a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East."
Even if the Republican-controlled Congress doesn't heed warnings from Markey and nonproliferation experts and block the deal, Trump may ultimately do so himself.
Administration officials have confirmed to journalists this week that the president will only let the pact move forward if Saudi Arabia agrees to a condition he imposed only after negotiations: joining the Abraham Accords, an initiative from Trump's first term that led to various countries normalizing diplomatic relations with Israel.
As CNN reported Wednesday:
Wright, speaking at a Wednesday press conference with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that the nuclear agreement and Abraham Accords negotiations "will be worked in parallel."
A Saudi official responded to a CNN query saying, "Saudi-US relations are ever-evolving and have continued to broaden and to deepen over the years."
"Saudi Arabia is looking forward to working closely with the US administration and Congress on ways to strengthen our partnership," the official added.
Congressional consideration of the agreement comes amid an illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Trump continues to claim the military campaign is aimed at stopping the Iranian government from building nuclear arms—even though he tore up the Obama administration's related agreement during his first term, and the American intelligence community concluded before the current conflict that Tehran wasn't pursuing such weapons.
Last week, former Republican Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that members of Trump's administration "are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings." In response, Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said that "we must shut the Pandora’s box of the Iran War before more horrors are unleashed—including the possible use of nuclear weapons. The longer this catastrophic war of choice continues, the more horrors we risk unleashing that many of us would have previously found unthinkable."
In addition to the United States and Israel, the countries known to have nuclear weapons are China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, as of January, the estimated global inventory of warheads is 12,187—about 9,745 of which are in military stockpiles for potential use.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deeply Alarming': Ex-Congresswoman Fuels Fears of Trump Using Nuclear Weapons on Iran
"Nuclear weapons must never be used," said the head of an Iranian American group. "This war must end before its architects drag millions more people, and potentially the entire world, into an even greater catastrophe."
Aug 17, 2026
A leading Iranian American organization on Monday responded with alarm after former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that members of President Donald Trump's administration "are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings."
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), declared that "we must shut the Pandora’s box of the Iran War before more horrors are unleashed—including the possible use of nuclear weapons. The longer this catastrophic war of choice continues, the more horrors we risk unleashing that many of us would have previously found unthinkable."
"It is deeply alarming that we are once again seeing reports that US officials are contemplating using nuclear weapons inside Iran," he said. "The taboo against the use of nuclear weapons has lasted for 81 years thanks to tremendous global efforts to contain a threat that could wipe out all life on Earth. That the taboo would be broken for a 'tactical purpose' in a war that was illegal under US and international law, threatening countless lives and risking a renewed nuclear arms race, is almost too horrifying to imagine."
Abdi's statement came as a 60-day ceasefire deal expired without any indications that an end to the conflict is close, and a day after Greene, a Georgia Republican and erstwhile Trump ally, made the claim about talks behind closed doors, writing on social media Sunday: "It's real. I'm not speculating, I know. And it's pure evil."
Pointing to the only previous use of nuclear weapons—when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan's cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945—Greene noted that after the immediate deaths from those attacks, "the extreme suffering continued for the Japanese people from radiation sickness, skyrocketing cancer rates, and generational birth defects. Not to mention wiping out all means of their economy. And the suffering was so great that all of humanity vowed, 'never again.'"
Trump and his administration "were told by our own intelligence that Iran was nowhere near creating a nuclear weapon, then Israel said the same line it's repeated for decades, 'Iran is only weeks away.' So we bombed anyways, killed their leaders and innocent little children in a school, and Iran has controlled the Strait of Hormuz ever since and punished the region for their part in it," she wrote. "And now our government is the one actually discussing lowering the nuclear threshold in order to use nuclear weapons against Iran even though Trump claims he's won the war like 40 times and says the US controls the SOH."
Iran's restrictions on ship traffic through the strait have driven US gasoline prices to a record high for mid-August and had various other economic impacts—and the public seems to be giving Trump credit for his "mismanagement" of the economy, with his approval rating hitting a new low and a majority of Americans, including many of his own voters, saying they are worse off financially under his second administration.
"Trump promised no more foreign wars, but may actually be the one who delivers a nuclear holocaust that would likely drag the entire world into major conflict, economic depression, and mass human suffering we've never seen in our lifetimes and maybe throughout history," added Greene, who promoted various conspiracy theories while in office. "People need to speak out and boldly stop this insanity. America is not untouchable. If and when that happens, everyone, and I do mean everyone, will hold ALL of those in leadership right now fully responsible for the rest of human history. Do not use nuclear weapons and stop this war NOW."
Meanwhile, Trump on Monday repeated claims that "the number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape, or form, a Nuclear Weapon," comments that came just days after he pledged to "never apologize" for launching the war.
In addition to bombing an elementary school in Minab on February 28, the first day of the war, US forces have destroyed various other civilian infrastructure across Iran, and the conflict has killed thousands of people throughout the Middle East. Amid difficult negotiations, Trump—who ripped up the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal during his first term—has overtly threatened to commit more war crimes.
NIAC's Abdi explained just how catastrophic the addition of nuclear weapons could be: "A NUKEMAP simulation of a 15-megaton surface detonation in Isfahan province, the area of Pickaxe Mountain, estimates nearly 1.9 million people killed and more than 523,000 injured from the immediate effects alone, and those estimates deliberately exclude casualties from radioactive fallout. Even entertaining this option takes us farther than any government should ever be willing to go."
"This war is already eviscerating any notion of America's moral standing in the world and, like the Israeli genocide in Gaza, is systematically disintegrating the international norms over the use of state violence that we take for granted," he said. "Already, we have the US president constantly threatening to destroy Iranian civilization and boasting about conducting war crimes like attacking civilian bridges and water plants and civilian infrastructure. His Pentagon is stonewalling the American people regarding its use of AI to conduct strikes like the double-tap bombings of the Minab girls school."
"Now, amidst increasing advocacy from pro-war voices hyping 'Pickaxe Mountain' as a necessary target in the war, Trump has vowed to target it and hit it hard. Additional commentary has suggested that nuclear weapons might be the most likely to damage or destroy the underground facility, which is deeper than the facilities President Trump severely damaged in June 2025 military operations, and Trump could drop the bomb and then declare victory," he continued. "The Defense Department has also recently begun drafting a new nuclear doctrine that envisions the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in a war with Russia or China."
Abdi added that "if nuclear use against Iran is being discussed inside this administration, our lawmakers must demand answers immediately and every policymaker must unequivocally reject it. There can be no hedging and no debate over circumstances in which this could become 'necessary.' Nuclear weapons must never be used. This war must end before its architects drag millions more people, and potentially the entire world, into an even greater catastrophe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Delusion of Strategic Stability in a Nuclear World
The risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.
Aug 16, 2026
Suppose for a moment that reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other nuclear powers will produce “strategic stability” for the rest of this century. That is, that there will be no nuclear war or war on a major scale between the nuclear powers.
Is that a world we should want to live in, a world where security depends on the potential for the devastation of entire societies, a world where we are supposed to live moral lives in the context of an immoral system of global security? My answer is no.
The question, however, is based on a false premise. It is a fantasy that reliance on nuclear arms can be counted upon to produce stability indefinitely. That can be demonstrated just by looking at today’s conflicts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in violation of the United Nations Charter was preceded by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to resort to nuclear weapons should Western states intervene in support of Ukraine. Then in the fall of 2022, it was credibly reported that that the Biden administration believed that the Russian government was operationally moving toward the use of nuclear weapons.
The US attack on Iran, another violation of the UN Charter, has been accompanied by President Donald Trump’s bluster about wreaking society-ending devastation on Iran, evoking the possibility of use of nuclear weapons. Whether or not his nuclear bluster is specific and credible enough to be considered a “threat” as a matter of international law, it certainly runs counter to the notion that use of nuclear weapons is out of the question.
A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war.
Nuclear deterrence involves the readiness to inflict massive devastation on other societies, even if targets are said to be military. It is planning and preparation for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and in some cases crimes against peace. Crimes against peace concern aggressive war. The use of nuclear weapons to initiate an aggressive war would certainly be a crime against peace. But there is a good case that the first use of nuclear weapons by a state defending itself would be so escalatory and disproportionate as to be a crime against peace.
Nazi officials were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They were also convicted of the crime against peace of waging aggressive war, including planning for the war that was carried out.
This was done in accordance with the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility. Individuals, not only states, can be held accountable for the commission of international crimes.
A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war. That can be done in many ways. One is non-violent protest, as took place August 6 outside the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California.
Reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other states means that the world is in a state of risk, immorality, and illegality. The imperative is to end that state of affairs.
30 years ago, on July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice released its advisory opinion on the legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons. The court found nuclear threat or use to be generally illegal, especially because such use cannot be reconciled with core principles of international humanitarian law forbidding the infliction of indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering. The court was clear that if a use of weapons is illegal, the threat of such use is illegal.
However, the court did not address all circumstances of nuclear use, and did not assess nuclear deterrence. But the court unquestionably recognized the state of at least potential illegality involved in reliance on nuclear arms.
So the court concluded its opinion with an analysis of something it was not asked, the nature of the nuclear disarmament obligation rooted in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in UN General Assembly resolutions going back to the 1950s. And the court gave a very strong interpretation of the obligation, finding that the obligation is to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
There have been other important efforts to move the world out of the state of risk, immorality, and illegality. In NPT review conferences beginning in 1995, non-nuclear weapon states extracted commitments from the nuclear weapon states such as reducing the role of nuclear weapons and engaging in verified reductions leading to elimination. If they had been implemented, by now the commitments would have brought the world much closer to the elimination of nuclear weapons, if not all the way there.
In 2017, non-nuclear weapon states negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). One hundred states are now signatories, not including, however, any nuclear-armed states. Whether the TPNW will serve as a vehicle for the nuclear-armed states to accomplish the elimination of nuclear weapons is open to doubt; they probably would create their own vehicle. Without question, though, the TPNW is a marvelous statement of the principles that should motivate and guide the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons. The first review conference of the TPNW will be held late this year.
We are currently living in a world of conflict, and especially under Trump, the United States has turned away from the multilateralism that reached its peak in the 1990s with the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But the reality is that nuclear abolition, probably in conjunction with other arms control and with changes in global governance, is by far the best way to address the risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy