Connect with us

Published

on

The Atlantic is publishing a collection of key internal government documents related to the Trump administrations family-separation policy, known as Zero Tolerance. The records informed the reporting of my cover story on how it came to be and who was responsible. Our hope is to introduce greater transparency around a policy that gravely harmed thousands of families and whose development and intent were concealed from the public for years. During the Trump administration, more than 5,000 migrant children were taken from their parents as part of a dubious and ineffectual strategy to deter migration across the southern border. Hundreds remain separated today.

From the September 2022 issue: We need to take away children

These records showcase, among other things, government officials attempts to mislead the public; inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent record keeping, which to this day means that a full accounting of separations does not exist; efforts to extend the length of time that children and parents were kept apart; and early and repeated internal warnings about the policys worst outcomes, which were ignored.

As you will see, some of the records are marked pre-decisional, deliberative, or attorney-client privileged in an attempt to exempt them from federal disclosure requirements and ensure they would never become public. The Atlantic obtained them only through extensive litigation.

The Atlantics records, combined with others secured by the House Judiciary Committee, the progressive nonprofit group American Oversight, and separated families themselves, have been organized and tagged for future use. The collection is far from complete, and many of the documents still contain redactions. However, we hope that this database will prove a useful tool for those engaged in research and documentation of family separations, and that the body of publicly available information will continue to grow.

Jump to Initial separations, Deliberations leading up to the implementation of Zero Tolerance, Zero Tolerance Policy, Misleading the public, Investigations by the Department of Homeland Securitys Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Problems with family reunification and attempts to thwart it, Known instances of separation, Collections, Further readingInitial Separations (Pilot Programs)

In the spring of 2017, Jeff Self, the Border Patrol chief in the El Paso Sector, which includes New Mexico and parts of Texas, quietly launched a regional program to start referring migrant parents traveling with children for prosecution, which would require those families to be separated. This strained resources throughout the immigration system, including at the Department of Health and Human Services, which took custody of the children. Federal officials would later call the program a pilot and use it as a model for expanding the practice nationwide. Some early separations also occurred in Yuma, Arizona, under a separate initiative.

Family Separation Directive for Texas Border Patrol stations in the El Paso Sector*

Family Separation Directive for New Mexico Border Patrol stations in the El Paso Sector*

Department of Health and Human Services official: They are discovering more separations that were not reported.

HHS officials contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking help locating the parents of detained separated children.

HHS official reports that the Department of Homeland Security is working on a family separation policy again.

El Paso Sector After Action Report summarizing the results of separations that occurred there in 2017

Jonathan White, head of the HHS program housing children, reports, We had a shortage last night of beds for babies.

HHS officials report, We suspect that there are other [unaccompanied children] being separated from parents.

Border Patrol official Gloria Chavez tells the acting agency chief Carla Provost that the El Paso Sector has been separating families for more than four months. Provost calls for separations to stop.

Provost: This has been ongoing since July without our knowledge It has not blown up in the media as of yet but of course has the potential to.

Border Patrol official Scott Luck asks colleagues Chavez and Hull, Why are we just hearing about it?

A DHS official requests a Border Patrol report on initial separations in El Paso to present to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

The acting deputy chief of the Border Patrols El Paso Sector tells Chavez, inaccurately, that family separations there lasted only two to seven days, and suggests, despite evidence to the contrary, that many people presenting themselves as families at the border were in fact unrelated. Deliberations Leading Up to the Implementation of Zero Tolerance

At a February 14, 2017, interagency meeting, immigration-enforcement officials presented a nationwide plan to separate families as an immigration deterrent. Afterward, officials at the Department of Health and Human Servicesthe agency that would be charged with caring for separated childrenpushed back against the plan while scrambling to prepare. The plan was also leaked to the media, after which Homeland Security officials began to assert publicly that the idea had been abandoned. In reality, during and after regional separation programs were implemented in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, the nationwide plan was still being pushed aggressively by leaders of the immigrant-enforcement agencies, as well as by Stephen Miller, President Donald Trumps chief immigration adviser, and Gene Hamilton, a confidant of Millers who worked at DHS and the Department of Justice.

Invitation to the February 14, 2017, meeting

HHS official Jonathan Whites internal summary of proposals discussed at the February meeting

HHS official: DHS stressed in a meeting that the overall intent of the actions is to serve as a deterrent.

White asks enforcement officials for more information about plans to separate families.

List of attempts by White to inquire and raise red flags about plans to separate families

HHS March 2017 report: Children who would be separated tend to skew heavily toward tender aged; separations could be considered a human rights abuse, cause a myriad of international legal issues, and increase the risk of human trafficking.

HHS official: DHS is looking to expand family separations despite a complaint filed with the inspector general. (Original complaint here.)

In an internal memo, federal officials describe family separation as a short term solution to be implemented in the next 30 days.**

December 2017 correspondence between DHS officials: Announce that DHS will begin separating family units.

December 2017 DHS policy proposal: Parental Choice of Detention or Separation

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan plans to formally recommend family separation: I do believe that this approach would have the greatest impact. Zero Tolerance Policy

Zero Tolerance memo signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsens follow-up Zero Tolerance memo with additional instructions

El Paso Sector initial implementation guidance

El Centro Sector implementation guidance

Del Rio Sector implementation guidance

Scott Lloyd of Health and Human Services asks McAleenan and Acting ICE Director Tom Homan for a meeting to discuss the implications of Zero Tolerance.

Border Patrol officials warn of repercussions for prosecutors who declined to participate in separations.

The Justice Departments Gene Hamilton touts a dramatic increase in prosecutions under Zero Tolerance.

A lot of parent separation cases are missing information, an HHS official reports.

HHS officials note inconsistent documentation and tracking issues.

An HHS official reports, There are a bunch of tender age girls stuck in Border Patrol stations; this is caused by the policy decision to separate kids from their families as a deterrent.

A magistrate judge in Tucson, Arizona, inquires about separation and reunification processes.

After a Bownsville, Texas, magistrate demands a list of separated families and their locations, a Border Patrol agent jokes, I might be spending some time in the slammer.

Yuma Border Patrol Sector reports: Resources are strained by meal preparation, and feeding detained families.

Amended Big Bend Sector guidance

Orders to halt separations following President Trumps executive order reversing course on Zero Tolerance in response to public outcry

A Customs and Border Protection official notes failures to properly document separations of 0-to-4-year-old children. Zero Tolerance Charts

Though a full accounting of the family separations that took place during the Trump administration does not exist, these internal government charts offer some insight into the nature of those that were recorded. For example, Homeland Security officials have often suggested that some of the individuals separated under Zero Tolerance were actually false families, or that separated parents were guilty of more serious crimes beyond the misdemeanor of illegally crossing the border, to justify taking their children away. But the first chart in this list makes clear that 2,146 of 2,256 separated parents who were referred for prosecution between May 5 and June 20, 2018, were charged only with the misdemeanor. During the same period, 137 parents were charged with the felony of having crossed the border illegally more than once, while only two were presented with other charges. The second chart notes that over those weeks, at least 251 children younger than 6 were separated from their parents, along with 1,370 children ages 6 to 12, and 1,272 ages 13 to 17.

Zero Tolerance Separation datasets May 5-June 20, 2018

Internal Border Patrol Prosecution Initiative Update charts from July 1 to July 7, 2018

Undated list of reasons for some separations Misleading the Public

Below is a small sampling of instances when government officials, members of congress, reporters and community groups sought information about a noticeable rise in family separations. Despite these inquiries, for more than a year, Department of Homeland Security officials denied that the agencys treatment of families had changed, suggesting that business was proceeding as usual and that families were not being separated any more than in the past.

The El Paso Federal Defenders Office has registered an increase in the separation of children and parents, an immigrant advocacy group wrote to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ahead of an August 2017 meeting. What is the current policy on family separation?

Border Patrol officials scramble to respond after a meeting with Representative Beto ORourkes office, in which family separations were inadvertently disclosed.

Months into the El Paso Sector separation initiative, Border Patrol official Aaron Hull tells the ICE official Phil Miller, We dont like to separate families.

Houston Chronicle reporter Lomi Kriel asking whether the Border Patrols policy on family separations had changed, and receiving unclear answers in response. (Kriels article here)

Jonathan White of the Department of Health and Human Services asks Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan and Acting ICE Director Tom Homan why his agency is receiving larger numbers of separated children than in the past. Homan does not respond. McAleenan does not disclose that separations have been underway to White.

A communications official at DHS seeks guidance on how to respond to inquiries from the media and immigrant advocacy groups.

DHS official to reporters: We ask that members of the public and media view advocacy group claims that we are separating women and children for reasons other than to protect the child with the level of skepticism they deserve.

In response to another inquiry, HHS officials decline to respond, and then confirm that more than 700 children have in fact been separated.

In internal emails, DHS officials push back against the story about 700 separated children, claiming inaccurately that the actual number is much lower. Investigations by Homeland Securitys Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)

Quarterly meeting agenda: There are reports of family separation cases at the border.

A report on an investigation into complaints of family separations cites inconsistency, inadequate protocols, and lack of collaboration. It recommends the creation of an interagency working group, a Family-Member Locator System, and other tools to prevent prolonged separations and to ensure that families are eventually reunified.

A summary of an investigation into 950 complaints about family separations anticipates permanent family separation and new populations of US orphans.

CRCL staff seeks information about the enormous volume of matters alleging inappropriate family separations.

Cameron Quinn, the head of CRCL, emails Customs and Border Protection Commissioner McAleenan to raise concerns about reports of family separations.

Quinn tells McAleenan that CRCL has received over 100 recent allegations of separations.

CRCL staff notes the Border Patrols failure to document some separations.

Quinn forwards allegations of coercion and abuse of separated parents to McAleenan and Acting ICE Director Ron Vitiello. (Original complaint found here) Problems With Family Reunification and Attempts to Thwart It

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official named Matt Albence insists that the expectation is that we are NOT to reunite the families and proposes ways to avoid such reunifications, such as moving children away from the border faster.

We cant have this, Albence writes about reunifications.

Albence and other ICE and Border Patrol officials lament that some families have been reunified, calling it a fiasco and not the consequence we had in mind, which obviously undermines the entire effort.

Reunifications, Albence insists, are not going to happen unless we are directed by the Dept to do so.

Reports that reunification forms were given to parents in languages they did not understand

Correspondence on harried reunification efforts

An employee at a company contracted to care for separated children tells colleagues, ICE will be stopping all reunifications due to limited bed space. Known Instances of Separation

In the federal lawsuit Ms. L. v. ICE, lawyers representing the federal government turned over the most complete list of family separations that exists. The ACLU shared that database with The Atlantic after redacting details such as names and dates of birth, which could be used to identify individual parents or children who were affected by the separation policy. Collections

Here, documents are organized into collections based on key criteria, such as year, location, federal agency, and the key players involved.

Full collection

2017, the first year in which separations took place

2018, the second year in which separations took place

Department of Justice, which prosecuted some separated parents

Department of Health and Human Services, which took custody of most separated children

Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the immigration-enforcement agencies Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, whose officers separated some families at ports of entry

Border Patrol, whose agents separated most of the families affected by the Trump administrations family-separation policy

ICE, whose leadership advocated for separating families and sought to prolong separations

The White House, where a group of hawks, led by Stephen Miller, Donald Trumps senior immigration adviser, pushed for aggressive enforcement tactics, including separating families

Matt Albence, Head of enforcement and removal operations, the division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that carries out deportations

Gloria Chavez, a long-serving Border Patrol official who had early knowledge of separations that occurred in the El Paso Sector

Gene Hamilton, Served as senio counsel at DHS under President Donald Trump. When Nielsen took over as DHS secretary, Hamilton left to work on immigration enforcement with his former boss Jeff Sessions, who was then Trumps attorney general.

Jonathan Hoffman, A close adviser and assistant secretary for public affairs to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

Tom Homan, The intellectual father of the idea to separate migrant families as a deterrent, who went on to serve as acting ICE director through the end of Zero Tolerance

Bob Kadlec, HHS assistant secretary of preparedness and response, who led the agencys family-reunification task force

John Kelly, Considered but ultimately rejected the idea to separate migrant families as a deterrent while serving as Trumps first DHS secretary. Kelly went on to serve as Trumps chief of staff during Zero Tolerance.

Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the HHS division that houses detained unaccompanied children. For months, Lloyd declined to look into reports of family separations, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that they were occurring.

Kevin McAleenan, Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol. In May 2018, McAleenan recommended that the Border Patrol start referring migrant parents for prosecution and separating them from their children.

Kirstjen Nielsen, After serving as chief of staff to John Kelly at DHS, Nielsen became DHS secretary and the face of family separations

Carla Provost, Acting Border Patrol chief during Zero Tolerance

Ron Vitiello, Acting Director Customs and Border Protection, who was second in command to Kevin McAleenan during Zero Tolerance and the preceding pilots

Katie Waldman, DHS deputy press secretary, who went on to marry Stephen Miller

Jonathan White, Served as head of the HHS program that houses detained migrant children. White opposed and tried to prevent family separations, and later helped lead HHS efforts to reunify families.

Chad Wolf, Chief of staff to Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke and Secretary Nielsen. Under Duke, Wolf pressed the DHS policy office to support proposals to separate families. Locations: Big Bend, Brownsville, Calexico, California, Canutillo, Del Rio, El Centro, El Paso, Harlingen, Hidalgo, Houston, Laredo, New Mexico, New York, Nogales, Phoenix, Port Isabel, Rio Grande Valley, San Diego, San Luis, San Ysidro, Texas, Tucson, Yuma Further Reading Congressional Reports

House Oversight Committee: Child Separations by the Trump Administration

House Judiciary Committee: The Trump Administrations Family Separation Policy: Trauma, Destruction, and Chaos Inspector General Reports Department of Justice

Review of the Department of Justices Planning and Implementation of Its Zero Tolerance Policy and Its Coordination With the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services Department of Health and Human Services

Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement Care

Communication and Management Challenges Impeded HHSs Response to the Zero-Tolerance Policy

Characteristics of Separated Children in ORRs Care: June 27, 2018November 15, 2020 Department of Homeland Security and Components

DHS Lacked Technology Needed to Successfully Account for Separated Migrant Families

CBP Separated More Asylum-Seeking Families at Ports of Entry Than Reported and for Reasons Other Than Those Outlined in Public Statements

Children Waited for Extended Periods in Vehicles to Be Reunified With Their Parents at ICEs Port Isabel Detention Center in July 2018

ICE Did Not Consistently Provide Separated Migrant Parents the Opportunity to Bring Their Children Upon Removal *The government supplied numerous copies of this directive with various portions redacted. The least redacted version has been excerpted here from the Border Patrols After Action Report, which summarized the results of the separations that occurred in the El Paso Sector in 2017.

**This memo was originally obtained by the office of Senator Jeff Merkley.

Note: The government occasionally supplied The Atlantic with multiple versions of the same email chain or report, and redacted different portions of each. Such documents have been combined in order to show all unredacted material.

Continue Reading

Business

Piers Morgan’s Uncensored nears £100m valuation after stake sale

Published

on

By

Piers Morgan's Uncensored nears £100m valuation after stake sale

Piers Morgan, the broadcaster and journalist, is raising tens of millions of dollars of funding from heavyweight investors as he seeks to turn Uncensored, his YouTube-based venture, into a broad-based global media business.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Mr Morgan is in the process of finalising a roughly $30m (£22.5m) fundraising for Uncensored that will give it a pre-money valuation of about $130m (£97m).

The new investors are understood to include The Raine Group, the New York-based merchant bank, and Theo Kyriakou, the media mogul behind Greece’s Antenna Group, owner of a stake in London-based digital venture The News Movement.

Michael Kassan, a marketing veteran, is understood to be advising the business on advertising-related matters and may also invest in a personal capacity, according to insiders.

A number of family offices from around the world are also said to be in talks to become shareholders in Uncensored.

Joe Ravitch, the prominent American banker and Raine co-founder who has advised in recent years on the sale of Chelsea and Manchester United football clubs, is said to be joining the Uncensored board as part of the capital-raising.

The move comes nearly a year after Mr Morgan announced his departure from Rupert Murdoch’s British empire through a deal which handed him full control and ownership of his Uncensored YouTube channel.

More on Piers Morgan

Allies of Mr Morgan said this weekend that some details of the fundraising were likely to be confirmed publicly in the coming days.

While the size of his personal stake in the business was unclear this weekend, insiders said the crystallisation of a $130m valuation would mean that Mr Morgan’s economic interest was, on paper, worth tens of millions of pounds.

“The ambition is to grow this into a billion dollar company within a few years,” said one person close to the discussions with investors.

“With the scale of audiences now being driven to digital channels and the commercial opportunities there, that is definitely achievable.”

The former Mirror editor, whose career has also encompassed stints at ITV, with CNN in the US and Mr Murdoch’s global media conglomerates News Corporation and Fox, is now drawing up plans to transform Uncensored into a more diverse digital media group.

This is expected to include the launch of a series of ‘verticals’ attached to the Uncensored brand, including channels dedicated to subjects such as history, sport and technology.

Mr Morgan is already said to be in talks with prominent figures to spearhead some of these new strands, with a chief executive also expected to be recruited to drive the growth of the overall Uncensored business.

His appetite to establish a YouTube-based global media network has been driven by the scale of the global audiences he has drawn to some of his recent work, including interviews with the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and the former world tennis number one Novak Djokovic.

Piers Morgan interviewed Ronaldo. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Piers Morgan interviewed Ronaldo. Pic: Reuters

Both of those athletes have collaborated with Mr Morgan by posting parts of their exchanges on social media platforms, attracting hundreds of millions of views.

Mr Morgan’s access to President Donald Trump, whom he has interviewed on several occasions, is also likely to be a factor in the timing of Uncensored’s expansion strategy.

While many ‘legacy’ news and media networks remain hamstrung by inflated cost bases, Mr Morgan’s decision to go it alone and focus on developing the Uncensored brand reflects his belief that the news and media industries are ripe for disintermediation by channels tied to prominent, and sometimes controversial, individual journalists and presenters.

The Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube channel has 4.3 million subscribers, roughly half of whom are from the US.

Of the remaining 50%, however, only a minority are British, with a significant number based in the Middle East, South Africa and parts of Asia.

Novak Djokovic at Flushing Meadows. Pic: AP
Image:
Novak Djokovic at Flushing Meadows. Pic: AP

This has fuelled Mr Morgan’s view that there is journalistic and commercial mileage in creating content on issues which historically might have struggled to generate a significant international audience – such as ongoing military and political tension between India and Pakistan, and the white farmer ‘genocide’ furore in South Africa.

Under the deal he struck with Mr Murdoch in January this year, Mr Morgan has a four-year revenue-sharing agreement that involves News UK receiving a slice of the advertising revenue generated by Piers Morgan Uncensored until 2029.

Mr Morgan had returned to Mr Murdoch’s media empire in January 2022 with a three-year agreement that included writing regular columns for The Sun and New York Post, as well as presenting shows on the company’s now-folded television channel, Talk TV.

He also recently released a book, Woke Is Dead, which was published by Mr Murdoch’s books subsidiary, Harper Collins.

As part of his new arrangements, Mr Morgan also signed a deal with Red Seat Ventures, a US-based agency which partners with prominent media figures and influencers to help them exploit commercial opportunities through sponsorship and other revenue streams.

Among those Red Seat has worked with are Megyn Kelly, the American commentator, and Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News presenter.

While many well-known American news media figures are followed because of their partisanship and affiliations to either the political left or right, Mr Morgan has positioned himself as a ‘ringmaster’ who is not ideologically hidebound.

His plans come at a time of continuing upheaval in the global media industry, with Netflix agreeing a landmark $83bn deal this week to buy the Hollywood studio Warner Bros.

In the UK, Sky, the Comcast-owned immediate parent company of Sky News, is in talks to acquire ITV’s broadcasting business, while the Daily Telegraph newspaper could soon find itself as a stablemate of the Daily Mail if a proposed £500m deal is successful.

Meanwhile, Reach, the London-listed newspaper publisher which owns the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror, now has a market valuation of just £176m – less than double that of Mr Morgan’s new standalone digital media company.

When Sky News revealed Mr Morgan’s move to separate from News UK earlier this year, he said: “Owning the [Uncensored] brand allows my team and I the freedom to focus exclusively on building Uncensored into a standalone business, editorially and commercially, and in time, widening it from just me and my content.

“It’s clear from the… US election that YouTube is an increasingly powerful and influential media platform, and Uncensored is one of the fastest-growing shows on it in the world.

“I’m very excited about the potential for Uncensored.”

This weekend, he added: “I am very excited that some of the most experienced and successful players in the global media industry, like Joe, Michael and Theo, share my ambitious vision for Uncensored.

“This is the future of modern media.”

Continue Reading

US

White House: Europe ‘unrecognisable in 20 years or less’

Published

on

By

White House: Europe 'unrecognisable in 20 years or less'

President Trump’s “America First” agenda has been spelt out in a new White House National Security Strategy that should make stark reading for allies and foes of the United States alike.

The new 33-page document outlines an upending of American foreign policy objectives and priorities which have stood largely unchanged through different administrations stretching back decades.

The document says American strategy went “astray” over many years. It seeks to reframe America’s strategic interests as being far narrower now than at any time in its modern history.

Among the key points, the document says:

Europe faces “civilizational erasure” and could be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less”

• “Certain NATO members will become majority non-European” within a few decades

•​​​​​​​ America will “shift away” from the “burden” of the Middle East seeing it now as a “source and destination of international investment”

•​​​​​​​ In the Western hemisphere, America should pursue a policy of “enlist and expand… restoring American pre-eminence”

•​​​​​​​ In Africa, American policy focus should be on trade not “providing and spreading liberal ideology”

America will 'shift away' from the 'burden' of the Middle East. Pic: Reuters
Image:
America will ‘shift away’ from the ‘burden’ of the Middle East. Pic: Reuters

In black-and-white, the text articulates a dramatic strategic shift which has been playing out at lightning speed over the past year.

The document underlines the end of the concept of America as an arbiter of the democratic rules-based order.

“American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests,” the paper says.

Every US administration publishes at least one National Security Strategy during a presidential term.

The focus of this one is starkly different from that published by President Biden in 2022.

It’s also notably different from the document which President Trump published during his first term. His 2017 paper cast the world as a contest between “repressive regimes” and “free societies”.

Trump doesn't want the US to be the arbiter of the democratic rules-based order. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Trump doesn’t want the US to be the arbiter of the democratic rules-based order. Pic: Reuters

This new one places the necessity to do trade above the imposition of values.

“We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.”

Mass migration and Europe

The new document is highly critical of mass migration.

It warns that uncontrolled migration is destroying the concept of nation states which could impact America’s strategic alliances and the countries it counts as reliable allies.

The paper is particularly critical of Europe, of the European Union as a concept and of individual European nations.

“Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less,” the paper says.

It continues: “As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.

“Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.”

Trump will seek to support 'patriotic European parties'. Pic: AP
Image:
Trump will seek to support ‘patriotic European parties’. Pic: AP

The document’s language around the politics of governing parties across Europe is particularly stark.

Regarding Ukraine, the document says: “The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.

“A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those government’s subversion of democratic processes.”

👉 Tap to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈

The document outlines how his administration will seek to support “patriotic European parties”.

This is entirely in line with President Trump’s rhetoric but still represents a major departure from the longstanding principle of not interfering in the politics of allies.

It says: “American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history.

“America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.”

Trump has at times had a fiery relationship with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Trump has at times had a fiery relationship with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy. Pic: Reuters

Ukraine and Russia

On European-Russia relations, the document raises the prospect of war but curiously does not presume that such a conflict would involve America.

“Managing European relations with Russia will require significant US diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.”

Read more from Sky News:
Germany introduces controversial military service law
Netflix agrees $72bn deal for Warner Bros studios

By contrast, President Biden’s National Security Strategy, published in 2022, underlined repeatedly the “iron-clad” commitment the United States had to Europe’s security.

Chinese risk and opportunity

The document presents Asia and the Indo-Pacific region as a source of opportunity for strategic and economic cooperation.

Maintaining US military strength over China is also outlined. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Maintaining US military strength over China is also outlined. Pic: Reuters

“President Trump is building alliances and strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific that will be the bedrock of security and prosperity long into the future…”

And specifically on China, the paper presents a goal of “economic vitality” achieved through a balanced economic relationship between the two countries combined with an “ongoing focus on deterrence to prevent war”.

Deterrence would be achieved, it outlines, by maintaining preeminent military strength over China.

It says: “This combined approach can become a virtuous cycle as strong American deterrence opens up space for more disciplined economic action, while more disciplined economic action leads to greater American resources to sustain deterrence in the long term.”

Hemispheres of influence

In line with President Trump’s focus on spheres of influence, particular focus is given to the western hemisphere.

There are clear references to the impact of drugs from south and central America into the US and more subtle references to control of the arctic.

“The United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region,” the paper says.

It continues: “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our hemisphere.”

Continue Reading

Environment

The UK wants to unlock a ‘golden age of nuclear’ but faces key challenges in reviving historic lead

Published

on

By

The UK wants to unlock a 'golden age of nuclear' but faces key challenges in reviving historic lead

The Sizewell A and B nuclear power stations, operated by Electricite de France SA (EDF), in Sizewell, UK, on Friday, Jan. 26, 2024. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The U.K. was the birthplace of commercial nuclear energy, but now generates just a fraction of its power from it — big investments are underway to change that.

The country once had more nuclear power stations than the U.S., USSR and France — combined. It was a global producer until 1970 but hasn’t completed a new reactor since Sizewell B in 1995.

Today, the country takes the crown not for being a leader in atomic energy, but for being the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear projects.

Nuclear energy accounted for just 14% of the U.K.’s power supply in 2023, according to the most recent data from the International Energy Agency, trailing its European peers and well behind frontrunner France at 65%.

There is ambition to change that and have a quarter of the U.K.’s power come from nuclear by 2050. Nuclear is considered an attractive bet gas it’s a low-carbon, constant energy source that can act as a baseload to complement intermittent sources like renewables.

“There’s a very clear momentum that has been observed,” Doreen Abeysundra, founder of consultancy Fresco Cleantech, told CNBC. It’s in part due to geopolitical tensions, which pushed energy security and independence onto public agendas.

However, the U.K.’s Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce called for urgent reforms after identifying “systemic failures” in the country’s nuclear framework. It found that fragmented regulation, flawed legislation and weak incentives led the U.K. to fall behind as a nuclear powerhouse. The government committed to implementing the taskforce’s guidance and is expected to present a plan to do so within three months.  

Going big – or small  

The U.K. is spreading its bets across tried-and-tested large nuclear projects and smaller, next-generation reactors known as small module reactors (SMRs). 

British company Rolls-Royce has been selected as the country’s preferred partner for SMRs, which are effectively containerized nuclear reactors designed to be manufactured in a factory. Many include passive cooling techniques, which supporters argue makes them safer and cheaper.

Nuclear has long come under fire by environmentalists due to radioactive waste and disasters like Chernobyl. Indeed, the U.K.’s first commercial plant Windscale became its worst nuclear accident in history when it melted down in 1957.

On October 10, 1957, Windscale became the site of the worst nuclear accident in British history, and the worst in the world until Three Mile Island 22 years later. A facility had been built there to produce plutonium, but when the US successfully designed a nuclear bomb that used tritium, the facility was used to produce it for the UK. However, this required running the reactor at a higher temperature than its design could sustain, and it eventually caught fire. Operators at first worried that e

Photo: George Freston | Hulton Archive | Getty Images

Most SMRs use light water reactor technology – think of the planned large-scale nuclear plant Sizewell C, just “shrunk down,” said Abeysundra – which is tried and tested.

Other designs, known as “advanced” reactors, are more experimental. For example, those that change the cooling solution or solvent, which is typically used in the process of separating and purifying nuclear materials. 

The U.K.’s first SMR will be at Wylfa, in Wales, though no timeline has been given for its completion. The site will house three SMRs and grow over time. 

In September, the country signed a deal with the U.S. to enable stronger commercial ties on nuclear power and streamline licensing for firms that want to build on the opposite side of the Atlantic. 

However, “the first thing is, there is not, at the moment, a single SMR actively producing electricity under four revenues. They will all come at best in the 30s,” Ludovico Cappelli, portfolio manager of Listed Infrastructure at Van Lanschot Kempen, told CNBC. 

While SMRs are a “game changer” thanks to their ability to power individual factories or small towns, their days of commercial operation are too far away, he said. From an investment standpoint, “that is still a bit scary,” he added. 

To secure the large baseloads needed to offset the intermittency of renewables, “we’re still looking at big power stations,” added Paul Jackson, Invesco’s EMEA global market strategist.  

Nuclear share of total electricity (2023)

IEA

SMRs “probably” do have a role — “they can clearly be more nimble” — but it will take time to roll them out, Jackson said, casting doubt on the U.K.’s ability to be a leader in nuclear, as France and China are already miles ahead.

The U.K. government body Great British Energy-Nuclear is set to identify sites for an additional large-scale plant, having already acquired one in Gloucestershire, in the west of England, as well as the site in Wales. 

“We are reversing a legacy of no new nuclear power being delivered to unlock a golden age of nuclear, securing thousands of good, skilled jobs and billions in investment,” a spokesperson for the U.K. government’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero told CNBC.

“Sizewell C will deliver clean electricity for the equivalent of six million of today’s households for at least six decades, and the UK’s first small modular reactors at Wylfa will power the equivalent of three million homes, bringing energy security,” they added.

Innovation in funding  

The U.K. has a strong legacy to build on. It pioneered fresh funding mechanisms to make large-scale nuclear projects investible so that they are less reliant on direct government funding, such as a Contract for Differences, which was used for Hinkley Point C.

The mechanism guarantees a fixed price for the electricity generated over a long period of time in order to de-risk investments in an industry that’s known for running over time and budget. Hinkley Point C was initially expected to cost £18 billion (over $24 billion) but the bill has slowly crept up.  

“That fixes one part of the equation, the price risk,” Cappelli said of nuclear investments, but the second risk is construction delays.  

The Regulated Asset Base (RAB), first used for nuclear at Sizewell C, attempts to reconcile this. Investors get paid from the day they cut a check for a nuclear project, rather than the day it starts operating. Sizewell C is expected to cost £38 billion to build. 

Private market investors are increasingly interested in next-generation nuclear as a way to offset soaring energy demands from AI, resulting in a host of young companies trying to build out facilities. Perhaps the most famous is Oklo, a U.S. firm that was taken public by a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) founded by OpenAI’s Sam Altman.

Rendering of a proposed Oklo commercial advanced fission power plant in the U.S.

Courtesy: Oklo Inc.

The next generation of engineers  

The U.K. faces challenges in access to relevant talent, which is crucial for scaling projects effectively. The country is heralded for its world-class universities and technical know-how, “but that is very much book knowledge,” said Van Lanschot Kempen’s Cappelli.  

“What we need is real on-the-ground expertise, and that we are probably lacking for the simple reason that we haven’t been doing it for a very long time,” he said.

For Abeysundra, there’s one area where the U.K. stands out: its mindset. “There is so much knowledge, innovation, and that can-do attitude, which I don’t see as much in other nations,” she said, pointing to the U.K.’s trailblazing role in the Industrial Revolution and establishment of offshore wind energy. 

X-Energy’s Kam Ghaffarian on Nuclear Power, AI, and the Space Tech Race

The U.K. government positioned nuclear energy as a key element of the future clean energy workforce in its Clean Energy Jobs Plan released in October, while its national roadmap for nuclear skills, set out in 2024, focuses on apprenticeships, PhDs and upskilling mid-career workers. Industry-led initiatives such as the Energy Skills Passport also support the likes of oil and gas workers to gain green skills.

Securing the supply chain  

Perhaps the toughest issue, however, is the supply chain.  

Uranium, the fuel used to make a nuclear reaction, is dominated by just four countries, including Russia. Global demand for uranium could rise by nearly a third by 2030 and more than double by 2040, according to the World Nuclear Association, adding further reliance on a select few countries and pressure on developers.  

The U.K. government has allocated funding to build up the supply chain and has committed to preventing the import of nuclear fuel from Russia by 2028. Fuel for Sizewell C will come from European or “Western suppliers,” Cappelli noted. 

However, for him, it poses the question: How secure is nuclear energy really? “We have to build nuclear power plants, but we need to build the value chain,” Cappelli added. 

Workers, expertise and funding are required for nuclear energy, but the supply chain is also key, he said. Otherwise, there will be “the same issues that we had with gas,” a nod to the U.K.’s reliance on just one supplier. Instead of gas, it will be with uranium. 

Continue Reading

Trending