Tuesday, September 22, 2026. Chump's approval rating hits a new low,
GOP senators worry about the midterms, Chump's attack on The First
Amendment continues, Hegseth's latest embarrassment and much more.
The
new poll, from American Research Group, conducted September 16-20 among
1,100 American adults, showed the president with a 29 percent overall
approval rating, with positive views on the economy at 26 percent.
Overall,
72 percent of those surveyed said they felt the U.S. economy was
getting worse amid rising gas and grocery prices despite the Trump administration‘s insistence that those pressures are still largely down to the previous administration.
42
days until the midterms. Early voting has already started in some
states. 42 days and Chump is at 20% and his approval ratimg.
The last time a president’s approval rating nosedived into the 20s was President George W. Bush at the end of 2008, Newsweek reported.
In
the American Research Group poll, Democrats almost universally panned
the president’s performance at 98 percent disapproval, while among
Republicans, Trump’s approval rating was a tepid 65 percent.
Independents gave the president a damning 26 percent approval rating.
The
results were based on 1,100 interviews conducted from Wednesday to
Saturday nationwide among a random sample, with a 3-point margin of
error.
Trump did even worse when
respondents were asked about his handling of the economy, with just 26
percent saying they approved and 71 percent disapproving.
Only
5 percent said the national economy was getting better, while 17
percent said it was staying the same and 72 percent said it was getting
worse.
42 days away and yet
even Chump's promise of bribery isn't working. In Dallas at the
TrumpsaBigLooser event, Chump announced he would give $5,000 to every
American adult if Republicans held onto the House and Senate. The
country can't afford this bribe.
Martha McHardy (DAILY BEAST) notes:
While
21 percent said Trump’s proposal would make them more likely to back a
candidate, 46 percent said it would make them less likely to do so.
Among independents, 45 percent said they would be less likely to support
a candidate who endorsed the plan.
Another poll delivered a similar warning.
A
Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,143 Americans found 63 percent disapproved of
Trump’s dividend proposal, including 4 in 10 Republicans and 9 in 10
Democrats.
The proposal was a desperate attempt by Trump to boost support for the GOP ahead of the midterms.
At
the Dallas convention, designed to rally the GOP before the Nov. 3
elections, Trump promised every adult American a $5,000 payment if
Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress, potentially
adding $1.35 trillion to the national debt.
But
an NBC News poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted from Sept. 11–15
found voters were more than twice as likely to back a candidate opposed
to the plan than one who expressed support for it.
Quinten Martinez, pumping gas under a hot south Texas sun, remembers a time when fueling up didn’t require difficult decisions.
“Is
it going to be groceries this week?” said the 28-year-old Amazon
delivery driver as he watched the numbers tick higher. “Is it gonna be
getting gas in our tank to go to work?”
He
shook his head when asked about President Trump’s assertion last week
that higher gas prices are a small price to pay for the war with Iran.
“I don’t feel like it’s a good trade-off,” Martinez said. “I don’t feel like this is good for anyone.”
Voters across the country, and across the political spectrum, tend to agree.
Interviews
with voters in several states, along with a fresh round of national
polling, reveal an overwhelming sense of frustration that skyrocketing
gas prices — a direct result of Trump’s war — are creating serious and
sustained financial hardships for America’s working class.
But
Chump's planning to spend over $900 million on his ballroom. Doesn't
that make it easier? No. Well maybe it's time the American people --
especially those on the right -- made it clear to Chump that American
workers are suffering and he needs to be addressing high gas prices --
not ballrooms and arches.
Midterm
voting was already underway Friday in Virginia, where Alan Johnson said
Trump seems to have “no empathy” for Americans who are struggling
financially.
“With the gas prices
being what they are and continuing to grow, we’ve got to do something.
Hopefully the Democrats can get into office and turn the ship around,”
said the 60-year-old engineer, who cast ballots in the morning for
Democrats for the U.S. Senate and House.
In
Raleigh, N.C., teacher Brittney Bivins sees surging gas prices as
evidence that Trump and his Republican Party aren’t dealing with the
issues that matter most to people like her.
“He
really doesn’t care about everyday people,” the 45-year-old said. “He
can afford the gas, but most of us can’t. So it feels like he’s not even
connected to his own people.”
Despite all of this suffering and more on the part of American workers, Chump has declared this a "golden age."
Adrian Volenik (BENZINGA) quotes
US House Rep Thomas Massie's response to Chump's absurd claim, "You
need gold to buy diesel now, so maybe it is the golden age."
President Donald Trump's chaotic handling of the economy is testing the loyalty of one of the GOP's most reliable voting blocs: farmers, according to The Washington Sun.
Ryan
Marquardt, vice president of the Iowa Farmers Union, was working a
booth at the Iowa State Fair when word broke that the U.S. would import hundreds of thousands of tons of below-market-priced beef
from Argentina and Brazil. The reaction was instant. "I've never seen
farmers more p---ed," Marquardt told the Sun. "That was the maddest I've
seen farmers in a long time." The
decision was one of several actions by the Trump administration that
experts and insiders say have dulled enthusiasm for Republicans among
rural voters, who are already facing high input costs from the war in
Iran and escalating trade wars with some of the country’s biggest buyers
of American agriculture," the Sun reported on Monday.
Some
conservatives insist the Democratic brand "is too poor to rehabilitate
in many areas" for any of this to matter electorally. But William
Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, isn't so sure.
Biggest liar of the day in the Chump administration? Probably the Secretary of Agriculture.
Andrew Stanton (NEWSWEEK) notes,
"Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said demand for beef remains
strong despite rising prices, and Americans say they are 'good with'
paying more for meat to feed their families." Beef prices have risen,
on average, 8% this year and, no, Brooke, the majority of Americans are
not "good with" paying that increase. You're a liar and a fool. Four
days ago,
Lesley Abravanel Andersson noted this on FACEBOOK:
USDA
Secretary Brooke Rollins looked at $6.50 ground beef and compared it to
her Dunkin’ order. Imagine hearing families cannot afford groceries and
responding, “Well, my coffee cost more.” They keep treating food like a
luxury purchase instead of the bare minimum people need.
What all of this means, as
Andrew Stanton (NEWSWEEK) points out,
is less potential voters for Chump, "Gen Z voters powered President
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election. But, two years later,
Republicans are losing ground among the youngest voting group amid
economic anxiety, according to several recent polls published ahead of
the 2026 midterm elections."
John Stoehr observes,
"Trump is causing oil shocks. The price of diesel broke records four
days in a row. The price of gasoline is following suit. Those prices
affect all prices, especially the cost of food. Just as everyone seemed
mad at [Jimmy] Carter, everyone seems mad at Trump. Disapproval of his
handling of inflation is close to mainstream status. A new Fox poll
shows him 50 points underwater. A new Marquette University poll put that
figure at 61 points."
Hayes Brown (MS NOW) reminds:
The
warning signs have been there for months. As far back as December,
polls showed that Trump’s own voters were beginning to blame him for
rising costs. Since then, medical costs have risen and are poised to
soar even higher by early next year. Electric bills have gone up thanks,
in part, to a wave of data centers powering the artificial intelligence
boom. And the cost of almost everything else has skyrocketed after the
Iranian government closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane,
in response to Trump starting a war he promised would be over in weeks.
The flow of oil from the Middle East has been heavily stanched for
months, leaving analysts worried that another major leap in gasoline and diesel prices could drive up costs even further.
We
are six weeks from the midterm elections, and voters are starting to
lock in to key races. Having just spent time in Texas and North
Carolina, I can vouch for the fact that ad spending is pouring in and
blanketing America.
Polling has
been spotty this year, but it’s worth checking in on where things stand
today. And, as of today, Democrats appear to have a solid edge.
According
to polling averages at RealClear Polling, Democrats have advantages in
eight of the nine closest states (the sole GOP edge is in Iowa).
According to these averages, Democrats are leading in Texas, Ohio,
Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Alaska, Georgia and North Carolina.
Republicans could be headed for a major loss in Alaska, a GOP stronghold, as the midterms swiftly approach, a new poll shows.
Democrat
Mary Peltola is leading against GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan by 46-41 in the
race for the Senate. The numbers indicate that a Democratic Senate
majority is possible.
The poll,
conducted for AARP by Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio and Democratic
pollster John Anzalone, shows Trump badly underwater, too — he's tanking
a lot with independents in the Last Frontier.
GOP
panic has been worsening in recent months amid similar polls, too. In
Georgia, Republicans are privately discussing pulling money out of the
Senate race, and other GOP operatives have warned that the party is
bleeding Latino support across the country.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the Iran war’s impact on diesel and gas prices has become a major political problem.
“This
is what people are talking about. How do we address it? I think we have
to recognize, yes, we have seen the prices of fuel and related
products, diesel — other refined products, fertilizer, we have seen all
that rise as a consequence of what we’re seeing in Iran,” she said.
“People
are feeling it, and they don’t like it. They don’t like it at all. And
what kind of response are we seeing from the White House? Is there a
recognition that there’s a connection here? If there is, I’m not hearing
anybody enunciate it,” she added, expressing frustration over the
president’s response to high energy prices.
Senate
Republicans acknowledge they now face tough Senate races in several
Midwestern states because farmers are angry over the cost of fuel and
the impact of Trump’s trade policies, especially a recent decision by
the president to allow 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef imports into
the United States.
“Clearly beef
is a critical issue for us. Our producers love the president, they
consider him to be one of their own, and what he did in sending a
message about increasing beef supplies in the United States by bringing
in outside [foreign] beef really hurt them,” said Sen. Mike Rounds
(R-S.D.), whose reelection race is rated solid Republican by Cook.
“That
has shown up in his ratings in places that normally would be solidly in
his corner. They’re frustrated and they’re hurt,” he said of the
backlash among farmers against Trump.
Rounds
said that’s “absolutely” giving Democrats a chance to win in Kansas and
Nebraska, where the local economies depend heavily on farming.
Last
Friday, Chump announced he was banning journalists with MS NOW, CNN and
POLITICO from the White House. Yesterday, the three outlets announced
they were suing.
Now, the three outlets will sue the administration,
arguing that such a ban is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists'
credentials because it objected to our reporting," they said
in a joint statement. "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom
and the public's right to independent journalism free from government
interference."
"The Constitution
does not allow a president or any other government official to deprive
the press of their First Amendment rights and liberty and property
interests with no notice or process based solely on his dislike of the
content of their reporting," they added.
Of
course, people should be allowed to write "purposely negative stories"!
That's my whole raison d'être. I hate most of what the government does,
and a lot of what each party does, and am constantly annoyed by people
looking to accumulate ever more power in order to force the rest of us
into submission and compliance. Let the negativity flow, baby!
Fox
News, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News joined together on Monday
and pulled their TV cameras from White House pool, effectively
boycotting coverage of the Trump White House following the ban on CNN,
MS NOW, and Politico.
“The public
has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information
about its government. No administration should restrict a news
organization because it objects to its reporting,” said the five
networks that make up the White House TV press pool in a joint
statement.
The move was led by White House TV pool chair and Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton, who wrote,
“Effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as
pool coverage of the President. This follows the White House’s position
preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be
no replacement pool put in place.”
On Friday, President Trump, upset that reporters are not covering his presidency as the unalloyed triumph it obviously is, banned CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House.
The sudden prohibition meant that CNN, which was the network scheduled
to provide TV pool coverage on Monday, could not do so. And in a rare act of press solidarity,
no other network, including Fox News, stepped in to replace them. This
meant that the White House was stuck providing its own live video
coverage of the ceremony to debut Trump’s new White House helipad on
Monday afternoon. Predictably, that coverage was a debacle. If
you want the world to know what the president says at his own ribbon
cutting, you might want to make sure people can hear him:
So
far, only one Republican lawmaker has publicly condemned President
Donald Trump’s decision to ban three major news outlets from the White
House.
Idaho Representative Mike
Simpson told Punchbowl News Monday that restricting CNN, MS NOW, and
Politico’s access to the White House was “wrong.”
“Just
because you don’t like what the press is reporting or the fact that
they wouldn’t call it the Gulf of America or something else like that,
that’s not the reason to ban the press. You should never ban the press.
The press is what keeps us honest,” Simpson said. “So I don’t like what
they’re doing.”
Republican
lawmakers who have opposed Trump’s policies in the past, such as
Senators John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa
Murkowski, all remained silent. Republican lawmakers who like to
pretend to be free speech advocates, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Rand
Paul, also failed to respond to the president’s sudden crackdown on the
press.
MAGA
influencers and professional fighters Jake and Logan Paul are being
told to head to the “frontline” in Iran after offering motivational
speeches to U.S. service members in a new Department of Defense video.
At
just over a minute in length, the video shows the Paul brothers meeting
with U.S. service members at the Pentagon and commending them for being
“willing to live, die and fight for their country.” The video was
published just hours after Trump threatened to “blow the entire nation
[of Iran] up” amid continued reports suggesting a ground invasion
remains on the table.
“I think it’s you guys
who etch your name to history as you fight for and allow us in this
country to have that freedom where we can prosper, be happy and be the
great nation that we are,” Logan Paul is heard saying in the video.
Negative reactions were swift, including from Grace Chong, the CFO of “WarRoom,” the podcast hosted by Trump-ally Steve Bannon.
“They should enlist,” Chong wrote in a social media post on X, referencing the Paul brothers. “All fake tough guy losers.”
Carey
O’Donnell, a pop culture podcast host and writer, echoed Chong’s
proposal, urging the Paul brothers to be sent to the “frontline.”
Journalist
Molly Jong-Fast joined in on the calls, asking aloud whether the Paul
brothers were “going to Iran,” while also ridiculing the Trump
administration for being “Laser focused on everything but what the
government is actually supposed to do.”
Journalist Philip DeFranco lamented, “Every day this administration manages to embarrass the country in a new unexpected way.”
Former GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger, who voted to impeach Trump in 2021, also slammed the video on social media.
“We aren’t a serious country at the moment,” Kinzinger wrote.
Tom Nichols, a staff writer at The Atlantic, took a swipe at the post in a reference to the U.S.’s ongoing war with Iran.
“The Iranians are terrified,” he quipped on X.
The
video shared by the Defense Department shows the Paul brothers posing
and laughing with Hegseth, a former Fox and Friends Weekend host, while
including clips from their address to troops in the Pentagon’s press
room.
Lastly,
Donald Chump's former roll dog Jeffrey Epstein may be dead but he's not
forgotten. Attorney General Todd Blanche wishes he were.
David Edwards (RAW STORY) reports:
Attorney
General Todd Blanche "has only himself to blame" for having little time
to fight a Jeffrey Epstein files order he ignored for months, a
journalist's lawyers argued.
Lawyers
for Katie Phang, a journalist suing Blanche to force the Justice
Department to fully obey the Epstein Files Transparency Act, made the
argument in a court filing Monday.
The dispute centers on an order
from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan requiring Blanche to start
reviewing Epstein files written in foreign languages by Thursday.
Blanche asked Sullivan on Friday to pause that deadline while he appeals the order, according to his motion.
"[O]nce a document is produced, it cannot be unproduced," the Justice Department argued.
Blanche
filed the request "at 8:46 p.m. on Friday" and demanded a ruling by 5
p.m. Monday without first contacting Phang's legal team, as court rules
require, her lawyers wrote. Two of her three attorneys were observing
Yom Kippur, which fell on Sunday and Monday, they added.
"While
occasional procedural missteps are inevitable in civil litigation,
Defendant is the Attorney General of the United States," the attorneys
wrote. "His disregard for local rules and professional norms was
particularly inappropriate here."
Sullivan
first ordered the review in June, after the department told Congress
that reviewing foreign-language records was not practical, according to
his Sept. 16 order. Blanche let the original July 2 deadline pass
without starting it.
"With less
than 72 hours' notice, Defendant Attorney General Blanche asks this
Court to stay his deadline to comply with obligations that Defendant has
already flouted for nearly three months," Phang's lawyers wrote.
The lawyers said Blanche waited 85 days after the June order to seek a pause, calling the request "egregiously late."
"To
the extent that the Attorney General now faces an imminent burden to
comply with the law, and lacks adequate time to appeal, he has only
himself to blame," they argued.
The
filing also says the appeal itself is improper because last week's
order only reset a deadline Blanche has faced since June. It is his
second appeal in the case, and Phang's lawyers say he is using it to
raise arguments he failed to make earlier.
Washington,
D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09),
Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, sent a letter
to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Ho K. Nieh about the
broad changes being made at the NRC to regulations, security,
organizational structure, and more, which could threaten worker safety
at nuclear facilities and impair independent oversight. The NRC has been
quickly making these changes and rehauling the organization without
providing time for public input or transparency.
NRC, a statutorily independent agency, has been undertaking
wholesale revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight processes,
and organizational structure pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14300,
“Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” that
President Trump signed on May 23, 2025. These sweeping changes encompass
47 regulations, 27 rulemakings, and 71 guidance documents.
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is undertaking wholesale
revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight processes, and
organizational structure,” write Murray and Kaptur. “We support efforts
to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory framework is efficient,
risk-informed, and capable of supporting the safe and secure deployment
of nuclear energy. However, the breadth of the changes currently
underway raises significant questions about whether the NRC has
adequately evaluated the cumulative effects of these reforms on nuclear
safety, security, independent oversight, and public confidence.”
Murray and Kaptur express deep concern for NRC plans to remove “as
low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) radiation safety requirements,
endangering workers’ safety: “We are particularly concerned about the
proposed revisions to the NRC’s radiation protection framework. The NRC
proposes to remove regulatory requirements implementing the ‘as low as
reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle and replace them with a
determinate, graded approach to dose management based on defined
thresholds. The proposal would also establish a new planned occupational
dose limit extension permitting multi-year averaging of doses, revise
monitoring and reporting requirements, and allow licensees in certain
circumstances to request higher public dose limits for controlled areas
and restricted situations.”
“The scale of this regulatory revision effort also warrants
greater transparency regarding its costs, benefits, and resource
implications. Given the scope of these changes, Congress needs to
understand the analytical basis for the NRC’s determination that the
proposed reforms will improve efficiency without compromising safety,
security, or regulatory effectiveness. In particular, the NRC should be
able to identify the specific requirements being eliminated or modified,
explain the basis for each change, and demonstrate how the revised
framework will continue to provide adequate protection,” Murray and
Kaptur continue.
Murray and Kaptur conclude by demanding more information about the
NRC’s extensive changes to its regulations, guidance, oversight
process, security programs, and organizational structure, and by urging
caution and sorely needed transparency: “We therefore urge the NRC to
proceed with appropriate caution and transparency as it implements these
sweeping changes. Congress has a responsibility to understand how and
why the Nation’s nuclear safety regulator is changing its regulatory
framework, and to ensure that those changes do not inadvertently weaken
the protections that are required to maintain the safety of the U.S.
nuclear fleet.”
The full letter is available HERE and below:
Dear Chairman Nieh:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the “NRC” or “Agency”) is
undertaking wholesale revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight
processes, and organizational structure pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 14300, encompassing 47 regulations, 27 rulemakings, and 71
guidance documents. The NRC has also updated and “rebaselined” its
Reactor Oversight Process and security programs, completed a
reorganization, and is proceeding with broader efforts to reform the
Agency’s culture. We support efforts to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory
framework is efficient, risk-informed, and capable of supporting the
safe and secure deployment of nuclear energy. However, the breadth of
the changes currently underway raises significant questions about
whether the NRC has adequately evaluated the cumulative effects of these
reforms on nuclear safety, security, independent oversight, and public
confidence.
On July 15, 2026, the NRC published a proposed rule revising its
radiation protection framework (91 Fed. Reg. 43456). We are particularly
concerned about the proposed revisions to the NRC’s radiation
protection framework. The NRC proposes to remove regulatory requirements
implementing the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle
and replace them with a determinate, graded approach to dose management
based on defined thresholds. The proposal would also establish a new
planned occupational dose limit extension permitting multi-year
averaging of doses, revise monitoring and reporting requirements, and
allow licensees in certain circumstances to request higher public dose
limits for controlled areas and restricted situations.
The scale of this regulatory revision effort also warrants greater
transparency regarding its costs, benefits, and resource implications.
Given the scope of these changes, Congress needs to understand the
analytical basis for the NRC’s determination that the proposed reforms
will improve efficiency without compromising safety, security, or
regulatory effectiveness. In particular, the NRC should be able to
identify the specific requirements being eliminated or modified, explain
the basis for each change, and demonstrate how the revised framework
will continue to provide adequate protection.
Accordingly, please provide the following information within 15 days of the date of this letter:
- A complete list of all NRC regulations, guidance documents,
oversight processes, security programs, and other regulatory
requirements that have been or are expected to be modified, eliminated,
consolidated, or otherwise affected as part of the NRC’s implementation
of E.O. 14300.
- For each regulation, guidance document, or other requirement that
has been materially modified or eliminated, the NRC’s justification for
the change, including the statutory, regulatory, technical, scientific,
or operational basis relied upon.
- A complete description of the process used to identify, develop,
review, and approve the 27 E.O. 14300 rulemakings to date, including the
roles of the NRC’s leadership, program offices, and the Office of the
General Counsel; the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and other
independent or advisory bodies.
- For each of the rulemakings, the staff hours and full-time
equivalents expended to date and projected through completion, by
office, and the associated dollar cost by fiscal year.
- For those costs, an identification of what portion is recovered
as a service fee under 10 C.F.R. Part 170, what portion is recovered
through annual fees under 10 C.F.R. Part 171, and what portion is
excluded from fee recovery under 42 U.S.C. 2215, together with the
resulting effect on annual fees assessed to materials and medical
licensees.
- All non-concurrences filed under the NRC’s Non-Concurrence
Process and all differing professional opinions submitted under the
Differing Professional Opinions Program relating to any rulemaking,
guidance revision, oversight process change, or reorganization
undertaken pursuant to E.O. 14300 to date, together with the management
responses to each; all letters from the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards addressing those actions and the staff’s responses; and, for
each action the NRC has voted on, the vote sheets and any additional
views of individual Commissioners.
- For each completed or proposed rulemaking, the analyses conducted
to determine whether the changes could affect nuclear safety, radiation
protection, physical security, emergency preparedness, environmental
protection, or the NRC’s ability to conduct effective oversight.
- A description of the criteria the NRC is using to determine that
revised or eliminated requirements will provide protection equivalent to
or greater than the requirements they replace.
- With respect to the proposed radiation protection framework, a
detailed explanation of the scientific and technical basis for replacing
ALARA requirements with determinate dose thresholds, including the
analyses used to evaluate the potential effects on workers and members
of the public.
- With respect to the proposed changes to occupational dose limits
and monitoring requirements, an explanation of the basis for allowing
multi-year averaging of occupational doses and establishing a reporting
threshold tied to a five-year assessment.
- A description of the NRC’s engagement with radiation workers and
the organizations representing them on the proposed changes to
occupational dose limits and monitoring requirements, including the
dates, participants, and subject of any such engagement; any analysis of
the effects of the proposed planned occupational dose limit extension
on the health of the affected workforce, including any evaluation of
collective dose; and occupational exposure data for the past 10 years
sufficient to establish a baseline against which the effects of the
revised framework can be measured.
- With respect to the proposed changes to public dose limits,
identify the circumstances under which a licensee could receive
authorization for a higher dose limit, the maximum limits contemplated,
and the controls and review criteria that would apply to such requests.
- All regulatory analyses, cost-benefit analyses, safety
evaluations, scientific assessments, risk assessments, technical
reports, legal analyses, decision memoranda, and other documents used to
support the changes being undertaken pursuant to E.O. 14300.
- A description of the NRC’s process for identifying and monitoring
unintended consequences resulting from the regulatory changes,
including deterioration in safety performance, reduced regulatory
visibility, increased radiation exposure, or other adverse outcomes.
- The specific, outcome-oriented goals and performance measures the
NRC will use to evaluate the implementation of E.O. 14300, including
baseline data against which changes in safety performance, occupational
exposure, public exposure, inspection findings, enforcement actions,
licensing timelines, and other relevant outcomes will be measured.
- A description of the circumstances or performance thresholds that
would cause the NRC to reconsider, modify, or restore a requirement
that has been eliminated or substantially revised pursuant to E.O.
14300.
- An identification of any licensing review, inspection, or
oversight activity that has been deferred, narrowed, or reprioritized to
absorb this workload, by office and fiscal year, and the fiscal year
2026 appropriation and the fiscal year 2027 President’s Budget Request
amounts that supports implementation of E.O. 14300.
The NRC plays a unique and important role in protecting the
American public from the risks associated with nuclear technology. We
recognize the importance of maintaining a regulatory framework that is
efficient, predictable, risk-informed, and capable of supporting the
continued operation of the existing nuclear fleet and the deployment of
new nuclear technologies. The NRC’s own materials identify these
objectives as central to its implementation of E.O. 14300.
We therefore urge the NRC to proceed with appropriate caution and
transparency as it implements these sweeping changes. Congress has a
responsibility to understand how and why the Nation’s nuclear safety
regulator is changing its regulatory framework, and to ensure that those
changes do not inadvertently weaken the protections that are required
to maintain the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet.
We look forward to your response within 15 days.
Sincerely,
###
No comments:
Post a Comment