The Asian Katra cargo ship (top left) arrives in Havana Bay in Havana, Cuba, May 18, 2026
A SHIP laden with humanitarian aid from the governments of Mexico and Uruguay has arrived in Cuba to help ease the effects of the illegal US blockade.
The cargo of the ship, which sailed from a Mexican port, includes personal hygiene items and 1,700 tons of grains, powdered milk and other food, according to a statement published by Cuban media.
Food Industry Minister Alberto Lopez Diaz said the items had arrived “at a time of great economic hardship, exacerbated by the tightening of the blockade imposed on our country by the US government.”
The US has been ratcheting up pressure as it seeks an indictment against Cuba’s former president Raul Castro over his alleged role in the 1996 downing of four planes operated by Miami-based exile group Brothers to the Rescue.
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
US President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to nuclear power in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on May 23, 2025. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law,” said the head of Beyond Nuclear.
A coalition of advocacy groups on Monday took aim at President Donald Trump’s nuclear power plans, including a recently proposed rule that would allow developers using federally approved reactor designs to bypass required safety reviews, which the organizations called “ill-advised and contrary to law.”
“In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law,” said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear, in a statement.
“But nuclear technology is too inherently dangerous to operate as an outlaw,” she stressed. “Ignoring those dangers will put millions of Americans at risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident.”
Beyond Nuclear and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) have submitted multiple formal comments to the administration, on behalf of overlapping coalitions, blasting its ongoing nuclear policymaking, which has been guided by a series of executive orders signed by the president last May.
The first coalition comments focus on the US Department of Energy allowing firms that build experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews. That filing was submitted in early March, a month after DOE announced the “categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures.”
Then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month unveiled a proposed rule to expedite NRC reviews of commercial nuclear power plant applications involving reactor designs already approved by DOE or the Department of Defense (DOD)—which Trump has dubbed the Department of War. That prompted more comments from Beyond Nuclear, NIRS, and allied groups last week.
“Along with the DOE’s environmental ‘free pass’ policy, the whole ‘expedited licensing’ regime the administration is attempting to set up appears to be illegal,” NIRS executive director Tim Judson, who co-authored the recent comments to the NRC, said Monday.
“The White House is trying to create a ‘regulatory tunnel’ around NRC’s safety regulations,” he warned. “That would mean DOE’s biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers to our health and safety.”
“And while the law allows the DOD to build its own nuclear reactors,” Judson added, “it does not allow the NRC to skip safety reviews for civilian nuclear plants just because they use the same designs. The military routinely exposes its personnel to dangers that civilians are supposed to be protected from.”
The coalition’s latest filing details how the administration’s actions are “inconsistent” with the Administrative Procedure Act, Atomic Energy Act, Energy Reorganization Act, and NEPA, “as well as the constitutional requirement for due process in a democratic society.” It also emphasizes that nothing in Trump’s orders “can excuse” the alleged legal violations.
“Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety,” Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear, explained Monday.
“The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda,” he continued. “Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn’t have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them.”
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says disinhibition and swearing are typical and common symptomsDonald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …
Former British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell delivers the keynote address at the 2026 Canada Strong and Free Network conference in Vancouver. Credit: Canada Strong and Free Facebook page
Is the mask finally coming off the long-delayed Pathways Alliance CCS Project?
For years, Canadian officials and oil industry backers have pitched carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the solution that would allow Alberta’s oil sands — and the nation’s proposed west coast pipeline — to proceed with a lower climate impact. Now, in a speech at this year’s Canada Strong and Free Network (CSFN) conference in Vancouver, keynote speaker and former British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell warned the costly, troubled technology has failed to deliver, undercutting a central justification for billions in public subsidies and new oil infrastructure.
This reporter was there in person at the April 24 CSFN gathering. Formerly the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, the CSFN self-describes as supporting “conservative and libertarian activists and ideas in Canada”. Imagine a MAGA-adjacent gabfest featuring speakers mostly cheerleading extractive industries or fear-mongering about First Nations rights. My already low expectations were not exceeded.
However, there was an unexpected utterance of truth from Campbell, who was the first elected leader in North America to bring in a carbon tax. And what does he think about the technology being touted to clean up ballooning emissions from the Alberta oil sands and justifying a new pipeline to the BC coast?
“It’s time to take off the blinders. Carbon capture and storage is something we’ve talked about in Canada for more than a generation, more than 25 years,” he told the conference. “We’ve invested billions of dollars trying to convince ourselves that carbon capture and storage will work. It doesn’t work. It costs money. And that money is money that we take out of other potential productive resources that we could have for Canadians.”
Campbell was certainly not suggesting that fossil fuel extraction be scaled back. His comments instead pointed out that pretending to solve emissions problems with expensive and ineffective carbon capture and storage is an unwise waste of scarce public resources. This unusual truth-bomb from a public figure stands in stark contrast to the theater playing out in Alberta and Ottawa, where CCS is being heavily promoted and backed by billions in public money as a panacea for oil sands climate costs.
Even a Pathways Alliance co-founder is now publicly coming out against the CCS project in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed, equating long-delayed efforts by the oil patch to limit its massive carbon emissions with a cash-strapped household wasting money on a vacation or meal deliveries. Is Big Oil now pivoting away from a marquee carbon capture project it never intended to build?
Meanwhile the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the $20 billion CCS project being promoted by the Pathways Alliance will make “Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity-produced barrels of oil in the world.” This multi-billion-dollar boondoggle has been offered as a “grand bargain” between Ottawa and Alberta to facilitate a new bitumen pipeline outlined in their now-overdue memorandum of understanding.
This confident public posturing was made despite internal briefing notes accessed by DeSmog showing Pathways had “…few front end engineering (FEED) studies done and initial cost estimates based on very limited project information”.
DeSmog previously reviewed 12 large scale CCS projects around the world and found “a litany of cost-overruns and missed targets, with a net increase in emissions.” Only 50MT of CO2 are sequestered each year by CCS, representing a mere 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gases.
A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature showed that a shortage of suitable geological formations worldwide limit CCS to mitigating only a puny portion of dangerous emissions. And even if injecting all production emissions underground was somehow perfectly effective, it would do nothing to alleviate the other 80-90 percent of downstream tailpipe greenhouse gases.
Such shaky fundamentals have apparently had little impact on government enthusiasm for throwing billions in public money towards dubious CSS schemes. The federal government has committed to covering half of the $20 billion estimated cost of the Pathways CCS project in tax credits, and the Alberta government is pledging to shovel billions more towards the highly profitable members of the Pathways Alliance.
Pathways Alliance companies — recently renamed as the Oil Sands Alliance — include Canada Natural Resources Ltd, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy, and Suncor, representing 95 percent of Alberta’s bitumen production. These giants enjoyed $37 billion in combined profit in 2023 and will reap billions more in windfall profits with oil above $100 per barrel due to Trump’s war on Iran.
A ‘Generous Transfer Provision’
A good yardstick of whether the Pathways project is credible is revealed in action, not words. Despite years of public spin and lobbying by Pathways members, the largest bitumen producers still stubbornly refuse to pony up any of their own money towards beginning construction even as Canadians struggle with historically high prices at the gas pump.
If carbon capture is so safe, why has the oil patch lobbied to wash its hands of long-term CCS liabilities? In a system unique to Alberta, the province assumes the long-term risks associated with CO2 storage once a closure certificate has been issued, a concession to the oil industry described as one of the most “generous transfer provisions” of any CCS scheme in the world.
Documents obtained by the Narwhal also revealed that Pathways Alliance president Kendall Dilling asked Ottawa for “assurance that the Pathways pipeline, hub and capture projects would not require a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act.”
In Alberta, regulators allowed the largest CCS project in the world to be broken into over 120 separate proposals to avoid triggering a provincial environmental assessment. Does this kind of maneuvering inspire confidence?
Not for local residents facing risks of a potentially deadly CO2 leak from a pipeline rupture, as occurred in Sataria, Mississippi where 49 people were hospitalized in 2020. Rural Albertans living close to the proposed 600 kilometre CO2 pipeline from the oil sands to Cold Lake have recently come together in an unlikely alliance of farmers and Indigenous leaders opposed to the Pathways project called “No CO2 Pipelines.”
“Thousands of Albertans like me live directly in this project’s ‘hazard zone’”, said Penny Fox, No CO2 Pipelines co-founder, in a press release. “In an explosion, people in our communities are facing anything from breathing issues to brain damage to instant death. So I have one question for the Prime Minister: if you wouldn’t live next to this pipeline, why should we?”
“We’re talking about hundreds of kilometers of pipeline that pass directly through areas where we live, hunt, fish and exercise our treaty rights”, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said. “This project endangers our people, our land, our water and wildlife. And yet there has been no consultation, no information sharing, and no formal environmental assessment.”
Gordon Campbell makes a good point. The Pathways project will cost the taxpayers billions and do nothing to contain the vast majority of ultimate oil sands emissions. Other Canadian industries have managed to cut greenhouse gases by one quarter since 2005, while bitumen producers have seen their emissions explode by 143 percent over the same period.
Why should highly profitable oil industry laggards still expect public handouts before cleaning up their own mess?
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
US Deputy State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott speaks during a press briefing at the State Department in Washington, DC on July 31, 2025. (Photo by Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)
As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was advised not to investigate the bombings, Pentagon officials expressed support for strikes on land, ostensibly against drug traffickers.
The former president of a top international human rights watchdog views the United States’ monthslong campaign of bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean as a clear-cut case of “murder,” he told The Intercept Monday, but he warned that pressure from the Trump administration may stop the body from investigating the Pentagon’s actions.
Juan Méndez, a former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, noted that a month after the IACHR held a hearing on the boat bombing campaign, officials “may well feel that this is a very delicate situation, and if they take the initiative, they’re going to incur the wrath of the United States.”
The hearing last month was the first of its kind and included testimonies from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group, and Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. The groups presented evidence that the US has been violating both domestic and international law by bombing vessels that it has claimed—without making any evidence publicly available—are involved in drug trafficking. Nearly 170 people have been killed in dozens of strikes, and legal experts worldwide have asserted the US is violating international law and has committed extrajudicial killings—potentially making those involved in the strikes liable for murder.
The hearing was followed by a statement from Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, who said the IACHR had “strayed far outside its mandate” by looking into the boat attacks—as the family of one man killed in a bombing requested it to—and accused the ACLU of trying to manipulate the body.
“The United States calls on the commission to adhere to its statute and rules of procedure in the future and avoid inserting itself into matters that are in active domestic litigation and fall outside the human rights sphere,” said Pigott. “Convening hearings under these circumstances risks undermining—not strengthening—the credibility of the inter-American human rights system.”
Pigott also called on the commission to “redirect its focus toward the individual petitions languishing on its docket, sometimes for decades.” He did not mention specific petitions or issues the IACHR should focus on.
Carl Anderson, a legal adviser at the State Department, also rebuked the commission for holding the proceedings.
“If the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”
A person with close ties to the IACHR told The Intercept that Pigott’s demand that the commission focus on other topics pointed to a pressure campaign aimed at stoking fear that the IACHR could lose its funding.
President Donald Trump’s zeroed out US contributions to the commission during his first term in 2018, and withdrew some funding the following year due to its support for abortion rights. The administration terminated funding last year for at least 22 programs under the IACHR’s parent body, the Organization of American States, of which the US is the largest international funder.
“They are stretched for funding,” Méndez told The Intercept. “And if the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”
Stuardo Ralón, the IACHR’s current president, denied that there is “pressure from the United States on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” but suggested it may not conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Trump administration’s boat bombings—saying the body “does not conduct investigations.”
The Intercept noted that the IACHR has conducted numerous investigations that it has publicly acknowledged and described as such, including into US immigration detention centers and the kidnapping and apparent killing of 43 students in Mexico in 2014.
Ralón told the outlet that it has not yet taken any steps to launch an investigation into the strikes following the hearing, and said it “will continue to monitor the situation in accordance with its mandate.”
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s human rights program, emphasized that “the commission is within its competency and its bounds to fully investigate the egregious violations of international law happening in its own backyard.”
“We have asked the commission to fulfill its responsibilities as the premier regional human rights body to conduct a fact-finding investigation of these heinous killings,” Dakwar told The Intercept, “and to ensure that no country can act in this fashion because that will have severe implications on human rights in the region and beyond.”
As the State Department has pushed the IACHR away from probing the legality of the boat bombings, administration officials like Joseph Humire, acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, have warned that the attacks at sea are “just the beginning” of what officials claim is an effort to defeat drug cartels—against which Congress has not authorized any military action.
US Southern Command announced a joint ground operation with Ecuador last month to defeat “narco-terrorists.”
Humire said the Pentagon supports “joint land strikes,” while Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of US Southern Command who has been directing the boat attacks, told the Senate Armed Service Committee that the Pentagon is moving toward “a counter-cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this network.”
“I believe,” he said, “these kinetic [boat] strikes are just one small part of that.”
An F-35 arriving back at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, June 2019
Corbyn tables Commons Bill requiring Parliament’s approval before allowing foreign militaries to use British bases
LEFT MPs moved today to block Britain from being dragged deeper into the escalating attack against Iran.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tabled a Commons Bill to require MPs’ approval before allowing foreign militaries to use British military bases.
The move comes as not only are US forces using the bases to pursue their illegal aggression, but British military forces are increasingly becoming directly involved in the conflict.
Mr Corbyn’s Military Action (Parliamentary Approval) Bill is co-sponsored by Labour, Green and Independent Alliance MPs and a response to PM Sir Keir Starmer’s agreement to allow US use of the bases.
While it has scant chance of becoming law, it signals growing disquiet in Labour’s ranks and beyond about Britain getting bogged down in supporting US President Donald Trump’s attack.
It would “require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces and military equipment for armed conflict” and “require parliamentary approval for the granting of permission by ministers for use of UK military bases and equipment by other nations for armed conflict.”
Its co-sponsors are new Green MP Hannah Spencer and her colleague Ellie Chowns, Adnan Hussein and Ayoub Khan from the Independent Alliance and Labour’s Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Brian Leishman, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, as well as suspended Labour MP Diane Abbott.
Sir Keir is under growing pressure from Mr Trump to fall in line as British governments usually do, forcing the premier to assert in the Commons that the “special relationship” did not “depend on hanging on to President Trump’s latest word.”
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpADonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceOrcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says “Wish someone would lock him up”.
The Asian Katra cargo ship (top left) arrives in Havana Bay in Havana, Cuba, May 18, 2026
