A group of 100 former officials, peace advocates and issue experts criticized the White House for planning to cut nuclear security funding next year.
In a letter to President Obama, the mainly left-leaning critics argued that the fiscal 2015 budget request would signal a “major retreat” in efforts to secure nuclear materials worldwide.
Specifically, the experts lamented a planned reduction to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative of 25 percent, and cuts to the International Nuclear Materials Protection Program totaling 27 percent. Also affected: The Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction budget, which is slated to be cut by 27 percent, according to the signers.
The administration has said preventing terrorists from acquiring atomic material to build nuclear weapons, even in crude form, is a key thrust in the president’s national security agenda. Officials have previously defended reductions to some nonproliferation programs, arguing that objectives could still be achieved under a reduced funding profile. They also have pointed to the fact that budgets are shrinking across all government functions.
The expert’s letter urges the administration to treat nonproliferation programs as a “top priority” dedicated to work “too important to be a bill payer” for other activities.
“In your closing remarks … at the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands, you rightly stated that despite the progress made over the past four years, ‘it is important for us not to relax, but rather accelerate our efforts … [and] sustain momentum,” the experts wrote. “The [fiscal 2015] budget request is out of sync with these objectives.”
Among the letter’s signatories are Kenneth Brill, a former U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency; Andrew Semmel, a former top State Department nonproliferation official; and Byron Dorgan, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota. They were joined by dozens of senior analysts from major think tanks and leaders of peace-advocacy organizations.
In other news, a group of current and former European politicians, government ministers, diplomats and military chiefs are calling on the world’s five recognized nuclear powers — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — to engage with other nations on the humanitarian consequences of atomic weapons.
The European Leadership Network issued its group statement last Thursday, as world envoys and nonproliferation advocates met in New York for a two-week Preparatory Committee session for next year’s Review Conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."