Japan Approves First Restart of a Nuclear Reactor in Four Years
Japan's atomic watchdog cleared the first nuclear restart since 2021, a shot in the arm for the government's effort to increase power generation from the energy source and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority on Wednesday approved a preliminary report saying Hokkaido Electric Power Co.'s Tomari No. 3 reactor meets post-Fukushima safety rules, according to a live stream of the hearing. Hokkaido Electric's president said in March that he expected the unit to restart in 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy in Gibraltar ahead of further talks with EU
Foreign Secretary David Lammy is in Gibraltar ahead of further talks on a potential post-Brexit deal. Talks on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached. Mr Lammy is in Gibraltar on Wednesday for talks with chief minister Fabian Picardo. Today, with @DavidLammy and @SDoughtyMP we held a Cabinet meeting in No6 Convent Place to agree final parameters for negotiation. We will now travel to Brussels to meet @MarosSefcovic and @jmalbares. It's time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship… — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 11, 2025 He will then head to Brussels for further discussions with European counterparts on an agreement over the overseas territory. In a post on X on Wednesday morning, Mr Picardo said it is 'time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial'. He also shared images of his meeting with Mr Lammy and foreign office minister Stephen Doughty. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move. Gibraltar also hosts an RAF base at its airport. The Government, in line with its Conservative predecessors, has said it will not sign up to a deal that gives sovereignty over Gibraltar to another country, or that the Gibraltarian government is not content with. The strategic defence review, released earlier this month, said the UK would maintain a military presence in Gibraltar, 'upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar territorial waters'.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
Axios
9 hours ago
- Axios
The dam breaks on Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's age question
D.C.'s "warrior on the Hill," Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, turns 88 on Friday. Her brutal birthday present: Well-wishers prodding her to retire. Why it matters: A dam is breaking on Norton, the second-oldest member in Congress — while Democrats nurse their hangover from the Joe Biden experience. Driving the news: Four D.C. Council members expressed concern about Norton running for re-election, in a recent Washington Post article that describes episodes of her looking feeble in public and diminished in private. Under fire from Republican intervention, "I just feel like the past few months, we've been behind," Council member Christina Henderson told the Post. Norton's response:"I'm gonna run," she told NBC News on Tuesday. "I don't know why anybody would even ask me." Hours later, Norton's office walked that back. "She wants to run again, but she's in conversations with her family, friends and closest advisers to decide what's best," her spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, told Axios. In response to Axios' interview request, Norton's office released a lengthy statement: "I've delivered better results than the vast majority of federal lawmakers — despite not having a vote on the House floor and without partners in the Senate who are accountable to D.C. residents." But the pressure is growing. "It's time for a change," Bill Lightfoot, a former council member and ally of Mayor Muriel Bowser, told Axios. Norton would win on name recognition, he acknowledges, but "not because she would run a good campaign, not because she's good on the issues, not because she can give a good stump speech. She can't do any of those things anymore." Behind the scenes: While always praising Norton's legendary legacy, insiders have wondered for several years about her ability to continue serving. Norton's public appearances have declined, and she often avoids media interviews. Well-timed floor speeches and daily press releases kept scrutiny at bay — until recently. Some blame Norton for not stopping the House from approving a bill that nukes D.C.'s local budget by $1.1 billion. It's a costly " error," still unfixed. The intrigue: What set off a firecracker in city hall was Bowser's senior adviser, Beverly Perry, telling Washingtonian she thinks Norton is "declining in health." "It's hard for her to navigate the political waters as she has in the past," Perry said. In the post-Biden era, Council member Brooke Pinto said she was moved to speak out publicly after reading " Original Sin," by Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson. "We need to speak up," Pinto told the Post. "That never happens," Norton told me on the phone. "People who retire don't go to training someone else."
