US nuclear regulator asks job seekers political questions
The posting, seen by Reuters on Monday, asks applicants how their commitment to the U.S. Constitution and founding U.S. principles inspired them to pursue the job. The specific opening is for a senior operations engineer serving as an inspector in the division of operating reactor safety at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Also among the questions asked are how applicants would use their experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and, "How would you advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?"
Trump has been trying to speed NRC approvals of nuclear power plants as the United States faces the first hike in power demand in 20 years, driven by the boom in artificial intelligence and data centers.
The Republican president signed executive orders in May seeking to overhaul the NRC and directing the agency, which was founded as a regulator independent of the executive branch, to rule on new licenses within 18 months.
Scott Burnell, an NRC spokesperson, said on Monday that the agency was "following Office of Personnel Management requirements regarding job postings," referring to the U.S. government's human resources agency.
Under previous U.S. administrations, questions in NRC job postings typically emphasized the applicant's work experience pertaining to operating a nuclear reactor, not an applicant's political opinions, said a person who works at the agency who requested anonymity.
In addition, a former chairman of the NRC told Reuters on Monday that the questions on the posting amount to a political litmus test.
"If I saw something like this as Chairman, I would tell the staff to replace them immediately with relevant professional questions, not something that reads like a lost chapter from 'Animal Farm' on how to destroy professional expertise in government," said Greg Jaczko, who served as NRC chairman from 2009 to 2012 under former President Barack Obama. Jaczko was referring to George Orwell's 1945 satirical novel.
In the current job posting at issue, not all of the six questions were related to politics. One, for example, asks how work ethics have contributed to the applicant's achievements, another asks them to confirm that they did not use AI in their responses.
Trump last month fired Chris Hanson, a Democratic NRC commissioner, a move that was criticized by nearly 30 former NRC officials and employees.
David Wright, the current NRC chair, told a Senate committee last week that a representative from Trump's Department of Government Efficiency is working within the NRC on reforming the agency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
35 minutes ago
- Sky News
Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?
Are Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists? How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn? We've had a bit of clarity early this morning - and that's a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne's podcast today. And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer - which still feels intriguingly opaque. You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they're not negotiable. For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government's day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus - i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing. And Rachel Reeves has been clear - that's not going to change, and there's no disputing this. But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document - a "charter" - alongside this. And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it's slightly unclear which are subject to the "iron clad" promise - and which aren't. There's one part of that document coming into focus - with sources telling me that it could get changed. And it's this - a little-known buffer built into the rules. It's outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility. This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules. In other words, if in spring 2027 she's judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that's fine. Now there's a caveat - this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero. But still, it's potentially helpful wiggle room. This help - this buffer - for Reeves doesn't apply today, or for the next couple of years - it only kicks in from the spring of 2027. But I'm being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card? The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes - but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned. But the question is - has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not? Or to put it another way... is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility "iron clad" and untouchable, or just the rules themselves? 1:17 And what counts as "rules" and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed? I've been pressing the Treasury for a statement. And this morning, they issued one. A spokesman said: "The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself." So that sounds clear - but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone? The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable - including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics. But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with? I'm still unsure that change has been ruled out.
Fashion United
42 minutes ago
- Fashion United
A turning point: cryptocurrencies on US congress agenda
New York, July 15, 2025 – The US House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on several cryptocurrency regulation bills. This follows the impetus given by Donald Trump, seen as a blessing by the sector. After years of procrastination and a series of legislative proposals that failed to materialise, Congress is prioritising this issue before the parliamentary recess on July 24. This action aligns with Trump, who has become a champion of digital currencies since his last presidential campaign, after years of denouncing them. Investors, euphoric at the dawn of this historic week in Congress, dubbed 'crypto week', pushed Bitcoin beyond the symbolic threshold of 120,000 dollars on Monday. This marks a new record. Genius act Among the three bills under consideration, the Genius Act establishes a legislative framework for stablecoins; cryptocurrencies backed by a traditional currency. These digital currencies are considered the safest and least volatile because their parity with a traditional currency is theoretically guaranteed. They are also generally considered to have the best potential utility for the general public, far beyond the speculative investment offered by Bitcoin. The Genius Act, passed by the Senate in mid-June, requires stablecoin issuers to hold reserves at least equivalent to the total value in circulation. These reserves must be in the form of readily available assets such as bank deposits or treasury bills. The adoption of the bill is 'vital' for a wider distribution of stablecoins, according to Gerald Gallagher, chief legal officer of Sei Labs. Sei Labs is a platform dedicated to blockchain, the technology underpinning cryptocurrencies. 'Many financial institutions are already eager to enter this market and are waiting for this law to be passed,' Gallagher added. Towards more competitive legislation Several banks are already working on their own stablecoins, as are online commerce players like Amazon and Walmart. Meta, Uber and Airbnb are also considering adopting them. Many members of Congress, like Trump, see stablecoins as a means of strengthening the dollar, thanks to the global distribution of stablecoins backed by the US dollar. Clarity act Another flagship piece of legislation is the Clarity Act. This act makes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) the primary regulator of cryptocurrencies in the US. Crucially, digital currencies are no longer considered financial securities, but as digital assets. This change largely shields them from the constraints imposed, for example, on issuers of shares and bonds. 'The Clarity Act goes further than stablecoins and puts in place a market structure that will allow the US to be competitive,' said Sylvia Favretto, chief legal officer of Mysten Labs, another start-up working on blockchain. Several Democratic elected officials have expressed reservations about the bill, deeming it insufficiently protective for investors in an environment where fraud, scams and money laundering are not uncommon. Gallagher counters that the two laws 'provide investors with a form of security and visibility that did not exist before'. Democrats in the House of Representatives also regret that none of the bills contain provisions to prevent conflicts of interest. They are targeting Trump, who has been associated with several cryptocurrency projects for a year, from which he has already earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. He created his own digital currency, the '$Trump', and a company associated with the Trump family, World Liberty Financial, marketed its own stablecoin, the 'USD1'. 'It is unfortunate that opponents of cryptocurrencies are making the president's family's involvement (in the sector) a problem for the entire industry,' commented Gallagher. The House could also put to a vote a third bill, which would enshrine in law an executive order issued by Trump at the end of January prohibiting the government from creating its own cryptocurrency. Several observers, including Juniper Research, have interpreted this directive as a further gesture to encourage private initiative in the cryptocurrency world. Trump wants to make the US the 'crypto capital of the world'. This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump shrugs off Farage's call for parliament to be recalled so he can address MPs during state visit
Update: Date: 2025-07-15T07:36:04.000Z Title: Donald Trump Content: Good morning. has given an interview to the BBC's chief North America correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue, and, while the most important lines are about Russia, it contains some interesting snippets about the UK. Trump is making an unprecedented second state visit in September and yesterday a mini Westminster row broke out about the timing of the trip (starting just after the Commons starts its conference season recess), and the fact this means Trump isn't being invited to give a speech to MPs and peers. No 10 implied yesterday that this was just a scheduling coincidence – and nothing to do with the fact that some parliamentarians are bitterly opposed to hosting Trump, who is widely reviled as a threat to American democracy. Yesterday Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said (to GB News, of course) that parliament should be recalled so that Trump could get the chance to speak in the Royal Gallery or Westminster Hall (the venues normally used for these events). But, when O'Donoghue asked Trump about this, he discovered that the US president doesn't agree with Farage, and isn't bothered about the prospect of not getting the President Macron treatment. Asked if he would like parliament to be recalled so he could make a speech there, Trump replied: I think let them go and have a good time [ie, let MPs have their recess]. I don't want that to … Asked what he wanted to achieve from the state visit, Trump said: I think just we I want to have a good time and respect to King Charles because he's a great gentleman. We have not heard Farage's reaction yet. His X feed still has this video near the top, featuring the Reform UK leader calling for the recall of parliament. Parliament must be recalled for 's state visit to the does @Keir_Starmer think Macron is a better friend of Britain than Trump? Trump's response suggests Farage might be less in touch with the views of the president, and the Maga movement, than he sometimes claims. And, given Trump's unpopularity in the UK generally, it is probably not wise for Farage to appear even more sensitive to any slights to Trump's dignity than the man himself. I will post more from the interview soon. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.30am: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet. 9.30am: Rachel Reeves, chancellor, announces a package of reforms to financial services in Leeds. 9.30am: James Cleverly, the former Tory home secretary, gives a speech to the IPPR thinktank. 9.30am: The Department for Work and Pensions publishes universal credit claim figures, including for the first time details of foreign nationals getting UC. 10am: Sir Adrian Montague, chair of Thames Water, and Chris Weston, its chief executive, give evidence to the Commons environment committee. 10.15am: Richard Hughes, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and colleagues give evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the OBR's fiscal risks report. Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. After 12.30pm: MPs start debates on two Tory opposition day motions. The first one calls for the two-child benefit cap to stay, and the second one calls on the government to commit to uprating tax thresholds in line with inflation and to rule out new taxes on savings, homes and pensions. Also today, the Department for Education is publishing new guidance on sex education. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @ The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
