MMN Editor

When an insurgent’s bullet shattered his arm in combat, Republican Florida Lt. Gov. Jay Collins did not wait around for an evacuation team; the Green Beret performed emergency surgery on himself to save the limb.After the midterms that Gov. Ron DeSantis called a “near extinction-level” event for Republicans, Collins sees a national GOP lying bloodied on the field. He advises his battered and beaten party to show the same refusal to die, and get up like a warrior.”Where we go from here is up to us as a Republican Party,” Collins, dubbed the “Chuck Norris of Florida politics” by DeSantis, told Fox News Digital in an interview just days after the midterm “bloodbath.””This can be a definitive death blow if we allow it to be, but I believe in what we stand for.” he continued. “I believe in our Constitution. I believe in our founding fathers’ vision. I believe that God blessed this nation. I think we have to knuckle down, learn, apply this, and we have come out with a relentless dedication and fury to focus on what matters: To lead our state, to lead our country, and be what we need to be for the American people. That is what we should choose to do.””Hard times happen. Warriors, leaders get up and fight. That’s what we have to do now.”DESANTIS CALLS GOP MIDTERM LOSSES ‘EXTINCTION-LEVEL EVENT’ — AND EXPLAINS WHY FLORIDA SURVIVEDThe metaphor is not subtle. It is a road map, set forth by DeSantis’ two four-year terms – the last year of which was supplemented by Collins as his No. 2.HUGH HEWITT: THE GOP IS WOUNDED, NOT DEAD — BUT RECOVERY HAS TO START NOWCollins said his home state’s recent history of going from a purple state to a GOP stronghold is an example the rest of the country can follow.”Florida’s been the road map,” he said. “I think we’ve been what I call the conservative proving grounds. I think that it’s time for many here in Florida to use our voice and to be out there and help our party get back on their feet. Be resilient. Yeah, man, you got popped. You got hurt. Get back up, dust it off, and let’s go lead. Let’s learn.”While congressional Republicans scramble to assign blame for a devastating cycle of national losses – including the loss of Texas to Democrats – Florida has positioned itself as the country’s preeminent conservative fortress, now the largest red state on the 2028 map.”Losing sucks, winning is awesome: Let’s get back to more winning,” he said. “We’ve just got to figure out how we’re going to do that, and that’s achievable. I think Florida is a blueprint. I think we have a responsibility to lead.”DAVID MARCUS: HOW ASHLEY MOODY SURVIVED THE BLUE TSUNAMI AND EMERGED AS A GOP STARUnder DeSantis, Florida shed its long-held “purple” swing-state identity to become the nation’s largest, most disciplined red bastion. Collins looked back on how he pulled in the no party affiliated voters (NPAs), the valued middle that can flip races and states, in his state Senate race before being tapped to serve under DeSantis.”Republicans showed up, but the NPAs showed up and they overwhelmingly did not align with Republicans,” Collins said, admitting that even Florida’s heavy Republican registered voter edge led to slim margins in the tough midterm environment. “What does that tell us? Well, the biggest gap we had was that we didn’t spend enough time communicating to our NPAs.”Collins pointed back to how he won a Tampa race in a district “that is not a conservative juggernaut in terms of Florida,” running against the Tampa mayor’s mother-in-law.”This was my very first race,” he recalled. “We didn’t talk to a single Republican out there. We only knocked NPA’s and light D’s, and we won by 10. What does that tell you? In a community like Tampa, I didn’t hide from my views. I told people I’m conservative, I’m a Republican.”JASON CHAFFETZ: FIVE TIMELESS POLITICAL LESSONS THAT GOT LOST IN 2026″What I realized is if you’re honest with people, you agree on more than you don’t, but you have got to be willing to step in there and have that conversation,” he said. “And we did that over and over and again. And we built a base of people who trust us, because I don’t play games.””As a party, we need to go back to being the party that welcomes folks in – a little bit more of a big tent – but we have to stand on our conservative values,” he added.Collins is termed out of office along with DeSantis in January, but he will evaluate his future in the state or the national party apparatus. For now, he is committing to nothing and merely saying, “Stay tuned.”TREY GOWDY: THE MIDTERMS WERE A PAINFUL LESSON THAT REPUBLICANS CAN’T SKIP LEARNINGRegardless of candidate or party, Collins goes back to his military background and having risked his life and literally sacrificed limb for unity.”I wore a flag on my shoulder every single day that I served in uniform,” he said. “I wore the flag on my suit, really every single day that I was out there, serving in our state or serving our nation in any way that I could. We’re the American people; we are blessed.”Once the party picks its 2028 candidate, Republicans need to be all-in against the opposition, Collins said.”We have to row the boat,” he said. “Sept. 11 was a big day in our life. Sept. 12 was incredible because we saw the power and the might of what America can be. When we rowed the boat, our enemy was fearful. They were on their heels because they saw an absolute juggernaut standing righteously to defend our people and our way of life. What our enemy fears, what other nations fear is Americans coming together.”TRUMP-BACKED BYRON DONALDS TO MAKE HISTORY AS FLORIDA’S FIRST BLACK GOVERNOR”We have to come together and realize that our nation is blessed,” he continued. “It will fall if we don’t come together. But it won’t happen if we don’t start uniting and remind ourselves that this is America, we’re allies, internal in our country, and we’re going to make sure that it’s the greatest country moving forward. America’s worth fighting for.””We need to focus on getting through this, the aftermath of this cycle, wrap it up, transition, and make sure that we understand exactly what happened,” he concluded. “You know, when we started the war on terror, and I was a young soldier, we spent two years trying to fight the last war. It wasn’t very great, to be honest with you.”Let’s not fight the last war. Let’s understand the operational environment. Let’s under our gaps. Our weaknesses and how we can clearly address those. And then we’re going to have to move with a righteous fury.”

The new White Hiouse helipad in October 2026 (Courtesy President Donald J. Trump)
A prominent ally of President Donald Trump says she won’t apologize for making money off her reputation.
Self-described journalist and activist Laura Loomer reportedly accepted thousands of dollars in undisclosed payments to write social media posts to her 1.9 million followers on X for clients who sought to reach the president, the Washington Post reported, citing former Trump campaign adviser Alex Bruesewitz and three anonymous sources.
Loomer has been an influential voice among those in the president’s circle during his second term, having personally delivered information to him about National Security Council staffers she considered disloyal in April 2025 and urged him to fire them.
Laura Loomer with former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida. (Courtesy Laura Loomer)
Loomer reportedly received $3,000 to $5,000, if not more, per commissioned social media post, according to the Post, citing two anonymous sources.
She and her media company, King Breaker Media, also appear to have received more than $60,000 across four payments since May 2025, according to bank records reviewed by the Post. These transactions may have served as payment for her X posts, two sources told the outlet, though the available financial records did not denote an explicit purpose.
“I’m not some influencer that makes money from tweeting. My business is public affairs and opposition research,” Loomer said in an interview with the Post. She also denied the allegation she asks for $5,000 per tweet.
“Thank you to the Washington Post for promoting my public affairs company and my opposition research firm [Loomered Strategies] today in an effort to demonize me for… *checks notes* being effective,” Loomer wrote Saturday in an X post responding to the Post’s report. “Turns out it’s not illegal in America to make a living, and it’s not illegal to have a business doing public affairs and opposition research.”
Loomer is like a “nuclear bomb,” an anonymous source told the Post.
“A great Republican strategist, a great person, a killer when she’s angry at you,” Trump similarly said of Loomer at an Oct. 2 campaign rally.
Loomer is an advocate of the Iran War, which critics such as Tucker Carlson and former Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene argue was a betrayal of the America First movement.
“WaPo claims in their smear article about me that I am a ‘nuclear bomb.’ They are right,” Loomer added. “You can hire me, or your opposition will.”

Thank you to the Washington Post for promoting my public affairs company and my opposition research firm today in an effort to demonize me for… *checks notes* being effective.
Turns out it’s not illegal in America to make a living, and it’s not illegal to have a business doing public affairs and opposition research. Since when has it ever been a secret that I do oppo research and public affairs.
People want to plant stories about me ahead of 2028 because many view me as a threat. They aren’t wrong, because when people look back at what I was capable of doing to previous campaigns, it’s work that even the most seasoned political consultants and opposition research firms are envious of. It’s work that has literally altered the course of history. It’s work that has been recognized by the most powerful people in the world.
Some people want to plant stories about me because I suppose they worry that maybe they won’t be able to get me on their team ahead of 2028.
2028 is going to be a very busy year.
The political landscape will be very contentious and fast moving, and as we like to say at @LoomeredStrat, “information is a weapon, and it’s time to get armed”.
Whether you are a business owner, a candidate for office, a lawyer, a donor or even just a private citizen, information is your gateway to success in a modern world.
Loomered Strategies is available to assist you with your opposition research needs, whether it be research into a prospective political opponent, a competitor, a business, or someone who you really just need and want more information about for whatever reason that may be. We won’t pry, and your confidentiality is always protected.
I enjoy helping people with their research and communication needs, and there’s always a need for information in a world where data and information is now the most valuable resource in the world.
WaPo claims in their smear article about me that I am a “nuclear bomb”.
They are right. That’s why people hire me and that’s why some people fear me.
As I said before, information is a weapon. Time to get armed.
You can hire me, or your opposition will.
Your choice.
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) November 7, 2026

Neither Loomer, Bruesewitz, nor the White House immediately responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.
Loomer accused Bruesewitz of paying conservative influencers for their social media posts through his firm, X Strategies, in another X post. She believes Bruesewitz disagrees with her politically and was “lashing out,” the Post reported.

I don’t understand why Alex @alexbruesewitz is all of a sudden trying to pretend like he is so opposed to influencers, consultants and anyone with a business making money online. His company, X Strategies, is one of the firms most common for paying so called conservative influencers to tweet, and his company has been doing this for years.
All day I have been inundated with messages from people telling me they were once paid by Alex’s company… yet he’s all of a sudden pretending like the business he participates in is unethical.
He still operates X Strategies.
I think the bigger question is, why is Alex all of a sudden changing his tune as he’s in litigation with his former business partner Derek Utley, and why did Alex wait till after the election to speak about this?
It would be one thing if Alex was consistent, but his entire company is known in political circles for *paying influencers* and helping clients boost their social media following through paid posts and marketing…
So what’s the story?
Is he scared about something? Is he trying to distract attention away from himself? Is he afraid he’s going to be investigated by Democrats because of his proximity to 1789 Capital?
Alex is very financially driven. Notice he says the influencer industry is now too financially driven. Anyone and everyone who knows Alex knows all he cares about is making money…. So since when is he not a fan of financially driven businesses?
Don’t believe me? Just go type in X Strategies into the FEC records and see how much his company has been paid over the years.
And to be honest, despite the fact that Alex is a massive hypocrite, I’m glad Alex has been paid. People deserve to be paid for their work, no matter how disingenuous and flippant they may be.
This is America where we celebrate capitalism, not communism.
Talk about hypocrisy though!
If you feel this way Alex, when are you going to close down your business?
By your own argument, your entire business model has “drifted from its roots.”
I’m sure you make plenty of money in your advisory role (you know the one), so maybe you will give up your company out of principle since you’re all of a sudden so bothered by it.
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) November 8, 2026

Bruesewitz’s company paid Loomer for policy-related tweets in 2025, according to the Post. Loomer, however, claims she was paid to conduct one page of research for him.
“I’m not against creators getting paid, I just think it’s probably time for political influencers to disclose what opinions they are being paid for,” Bruesewitz said in a Saturday post to X responding to Loomer.
“Our discourse would be healthier if those arrangements had to be disclosed,” he continued, claiming he is transparent about his work.

I’ve been open about my work in this industry. My experience is what makes me uniquely qualified to say it’s gotten out of hand. I’m not against creators getting paid, I just think it’s probably time for political influencers to disclose what opinions they are being paid for. Our discourse would be healthier if those arrangements had to be disclosed.
Why are you so opposed to disclosures?
— Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) November 8, 2026

Influencers must disclose an “endorsement” when they are paid to promote a product, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Patrick Mahomes has left the Kansas City Chiefs game against the New York Jets with what appears to be a serious injury to his right (throwing) arm.The Kansas City Chiefs quarterback took a hit from New York Jets edge rusher David Bailey as he was winding up to throw a deep pass. Instead, his arm hit Bailey as the defender closed in on Mahomes.The ball fluttered to the ground as an apparent fumble.PATRICK MAHOMES ANSWERS TROUBLING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS SERIOUS KNEE INJURY ON FIRST DRIVE OF THE CHIEFS SEASONMahomes was left on his knees, grasping his right elbow, in obvious pain.PATRICK MAHOMES SO OBSESSIVE ABOUT KNEE REHAB HE TAKES A TRAINER WITH HIM WHEN HE LEAVES TOWNThe shocking thing of all this? Mahomes returned to the game.The man is Gumby.THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!Despite seeming to favor the arm, as he tried to make throws on the sideline, Mahomes returned to the game on Kansas City’s next series and threw a completion to tight end Travis Kelce.Then he scrambled up the middle for a 7-yard gain.This is not normal.The game is at halftime and the expectation is Mahomes will receive further attention then before a decision on his status in the second half is finalized.This is a breaking story and will be updated.

Comedian Dave Chappelle said he feels “better” following the assassination of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk during a stand-up performance in New York City on Friday night, provoking outrage across social media.Despite rules barring cell phones from the Madison Square Garden show, a video circulating on social media shows Chappelle appearing to make the remarks during his “Karmageddon” tour stop in New York City.”I feel f—– up saying this. It’s scary being a public speaker. And I mean, look, ever since that guy, Charlie Kirk, got murdered, and I shouldn’t say this publicly, but, I feel better.”‘SNL’ WEEKEND UPDATE ANCHOR CALLS REPUBLICANS SLURS, MOCKS CHARLIE KIRK IN STAND-UP SPECIAL”I know I shouldn’t say that, but it’s just a feeling. I didn’t ask to feel this way,” Chappelle said. He then described his unexpected high spirits in the aftermath of Kirk’s killing.”I just be driving around like, ‘Why am I in such a good mood? Oh!'” Chapelle continued on Friday.TPUSA pointed Fox News Digital to Erika Kirk’s statement on X, in which she wrote that treating the destruction of human life as a punchline is “disgusting.””A culture that laughs at assassination is one of profound moral decay. It threatens the very foundation of our country and the principles that hold our democracy together. You do not have to agree with someone’s politics to recognize the value of their life. This should not be so hard,” she continued.”Shame, shame, shame on Chappelle,” Elon Musk posted.Benny Johnson, host of “The Benny Show” podcast, called Chappelle’s remarks “sick,” while political commentator Meghan McCain asked, “What the h— is wrong with Dave Chappelle?!”Former communications director to former Vice President Mike Pence Katie Miller tagged Live Nation, the entertainment behemoth that sold tickets for Chapelle’s tour, on X and asked, “Is this something we agree with?”Journalist Piers Morgan wrote that Chappelle’s comments were “especially egregious given that Chappelle himself survived an attack on stage in 2022.” Many on X pointed out that Charlie Kirk himself posted in support of Chappelle after the comedian was attacked. Kirk wrote that refusing to charge the comedian’s assailant sent “a clear message that public acts of political violence are justifiable.” The man who attacked Chappelle was ultimately charged with four misdemeanors.Kirk was murdered at a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University in Orem on September 10, 2025.A trial date for Tyler Robinson, 23, the alleged shooter, has not yet been set.PETE DAVIDSON SPARKS BACKLASH AFTER EXPLICIT JOKE ABOUT SLAIN CHARLIE KIRK DURING NETFLIX ROASTRobinson has pleaded ⁠not guilty to all seven charges filed against him. His attorneys are seeking to block cameras from an upcoming hearing.Chappelle has received backlash for his edgier jokes over the years, including jokes about transgender people. Pushback against part of his stand-up show “The Closer,” released on Netflix in 2021, led to a small group of Netflix employees staging a walkout in protest. Kirk’s murder has been the subject of multiple comedians’ sets, including, Pete Davidson, who faced backlash after an explicit joke during Netflix’s “The Roast of Kevin Hart” at the Kia Forum in Los Angeles. “Tony reminds me of Charlie Kirk in that he’s definitely been on camera letting a guy unload in his throat,” Davidson said during the roast. “Saturday Night Live” “Weekend Update” co-anchor Michael Che also joked about Kirk’s killing during his Netflix special, “Michael Che: Shot in Minnesota.””I feel like Erika Kirk on this stage. That’s no disrespect to the Kirks, by the way,” Che said. Che said he didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was before the activist was killed, joking that he initially thought people were talking about “the dude from Star Trek.”Fox News Digital reached out to Chapelle’s team and Madison Square Garden for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

Former President George W. Bush welcomed 27 veterans to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for his 16th annual Warrior Ride, an event honoring their service and recovery ahead of Veterans Day.”These veterans have overcome a lot… but there’s no self-pity. There’s no, ‘Please feel sorry for me,'” the 43rd president said on Friday.”They serve as a great example of how to deal with life’s difficulties and recover. I’ve watched a lot of them over the years go from darkness to light,” he said. Bush’s continued involvement with wounded veterans drew praise from his cousin, Fox News contributor Billy Bush, who emphasized on “The Sunday Briefing” that the former president’s commitment to service members did not end when he left the White House.”George W. Bush has never wavered,” he said.”The greatest responsibility of the office is deciding to send troops to war, and inevitably, some get hurt. And for George W., that doesn’t end when you walk out of office. He’s done it 16 years in a row. He’s hopping on his bike and riding with the guys.”NEARLY 200 INJURED SERVICE MEMBERS COMPETE IN 2026 WARRIOR GAMESBush also cited his cousin’s portraits of wounded warriors as another example of George W. Bush’s continued dedication to veterans.GEORGE BUSH WELCOMES TOP OFFICIALS TO HIS HOME STATE FOR 9/11 REMEMBRANCE ON 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF ATTACKS”Character matters, and his artwork is about wounded warriors. He has really, really lived it all the way through. So hats off to the old man.”Billy Bush also joked about seeing his 80-year-old cousin back on a bicycle.”I’m a little nervous seeing him at 80 years old on there. Here he goes. Keep it on the flats, man.”

AG Todd Blanche was on “Fox News Sunday” with guest host Gillian Turner to discuss the Democrats threatening lawfare against the Trump administration.
Since the Democrats won the midterms last week, a number of them have been threatening not only the administration, but even donors to the Republican Party, American companies, and college students who would consider working in the Trump administration.
“With the Democrats about to take a majority on the Hill, incoming committee leaders have already promised investigations into the Trump administration,” Turner said.
“Some Democrats are now calling this new Congress that will get underway in January the “lawyer up” era. They are threatening as you well know, investigations, subpoenas, potential impeachment articles,” Turner continued.
“Do you agree with the President that these threats from Democrats are potentially criminal acts, and when do you plan to begin your counter investigation?” Turner asked.
“This has been happening for months now. You had a Senator threatening college students, threatening young people that if they joined the Trump administration, they should look forward to investigations and having to get lawyers. That is not something we can tolerate in this country,” Blanche said.
“Since Tuesday, you have had incoming leaders just do exactly the same thing. They are threatening current members of the administration. They are threatening American companies who have invested in jobs, invested in manufacturing,” Blanche said.
“At some point, we have to say enough is enough. That is not the way this country can survive or live with these ongoing threats,” Blanche continued.
“They have tried this before. It didn’t work last time. It’s not gonna work this time,” Blanche said.
“If you work in this administration, you have a lawyer; it’s me. And we will defend you. We will work hard,” Blanche said.
“Isn’t there a rather fine dividing line between not tolerating, as you say, these kinds of threats and actually investigating, potentially launching criminal charges against these Democrats?” Turner asked.
“Yes, and it depends on what’s said. Some of these threats were horrific. For example, a Senator threatening people who are still in college getting their education that if they choose to go and work, if they choose to exercise their rights to go and work for an administration, that they are gonna be investigated. That’s a threat that should never happen,” Blanche explained.
Blanche was talking about unimpressive leftist Sen. Slotkin in Michigan for threatening college kids.
“President Trump welcomes, welcomes any sort of commentary and criticism. He always has, but what he is frustrated with, what he is angry about, and he should be, is these outright threats to come after people, to investigate people, to ruin their lives, to lawyer up. This is something the Democrats tried four years ago with President Trump and his family. It did not work then, and it won’t work now,” Blanche said.
Watch:

WATCH: @AGToddBlanche responds to Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI) accusations about corruption in the Trump administration: “if there is corruption, this department will investigate it and will prosecute it,” adding however that having success in this economy is not the same thing. https://t.co/Otz8JKW2I5
— Fox News Sunday (@FoxNewsSunday) November 8, 2026

The post AG Todd Blanche Hits Back at Democrats For Threatening Trump Allies – Singles Out Sen. Slotkin (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Federal nuclear regulators are setting deadlines for licensing challenges that can hold up new reactors as the Trump administration seeks faster approvals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule in the Federal Register Tuesday that aims to wrap up most contested licensing hearings in 11 to 13.5 months, and faster for expedited cases.
Within that process, the agency’s current model schedule envisions about nine months for evidentiary hearings, and in practice that phase “has on average taken substantially longer,” according to the rule. Most proceedings will now get 3.5 to 4.5 months for that phase.
Contested hearings involve a person or group challenging part of a license application, according to the rule. An independent NRC board usually decides whether to admit the claim and, if it does, holds an evidentiary hearing on it.
“In 2024, Congress passed the ADVANCE Act which gave the NRC some timelines to get licenses out more quickly,” NRC General Counsel Matt Pociask said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Those timelines were reinforced in Executive Order 14300 by this Administration to also get licenses out more quickly.”
“To meet the commands of that statute and this Executive Order, we couldn’t allow hearings to stretch on and on and on,” Pociask added.
The final rule “maintains the public’s ability to participate and the requirements for what a member of the public needs to show in order to get into a hearing,” the agency said in a statement to the DCNF.
Under the rule, groups keep 60 days to request a hearing on most applications to build reactors that do not use an already certified design, but the window shrinks to 45 days for license renewals and some other cases.
Uranium Watch, a Moab, Utah, nonprofit that works on uranium mining and milling issues, opposed the plan and argued that faster hearings would undercut the agency’s work protecting public health and safety, according to its public comments on the plan.
“It is not the NRC’s job to accelerate the deployment of nuclear reactors, large or small,” Program Director Sarah Fields wrote for the group in April. “The NRC should support more rigorous technical and environmental reviews by the NRC staff and the public, not less.”
Contested hearings “don’t run on a fixed clock,” and one project can face several rounds of challenges, Bill Meierling, chief external affairs officer at ClearPath, a conservative clean energy group, said in a statement to the DCNF.
“That uncertainty is the core problem,” Meierling said. “Developers and investors can plan around a long process if they know how long it will take. What they can’t plan around is a process with no defined endpoint, where new challenges can reopen questions at any stage.”
Meierling cited recent challenges to X-energy and Dow’s project in Texas and to the restarts of the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa and the Crane Clean Energy Center in Pennsylvania as examples.
The new deadlines apply only to cases noticed starting Dec. 3, when the rule takes effect, according to the Federal Register notice.
“Projects tied to commercial commitments, like power agreements with data centers, depend on knowing when a decision will come,” Meierling added. “Certainty benefits every new reactor project.”
The rule is important but will not be the main factor in whether nuclear power can soon help supply data centers, Mark Mills, founder and executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, said in a statement to the DCNF.
One big hurdle is the time needed to grow nuclear’s industrial base and supply chains, which will almost certainly take far longer than data center demand allows, Mills said.
“We already see evidence of rising opposition which, if history is any lesson, leads to delays,” Mills added, pointing to “the likely re-ignition of professional opposition to nuclear energy.”
“Previous NRC contested hearings on reactor licenses often stretched for years,” Alex Stevens, manager of policy and communications at the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF in a statement. “A clear example is the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 combined-license proceeding, whose contested phase ran from roughly 2010 to 2017.”
“The rule does not change safety or security standards, the agency’s independent review, or the public’s right to request a hearing with standing and admissible contentions,” Stevens noted.
The Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank that supports advanced nuclear development, backed faster hearings in its own comments but said the public should still get its chance to raise concerns.
Past applications to site or build large reactors “were nearly always the subject of a hearing request,” the NRC wrote. Evidentiary hearings were held in proceedings for four of the eight combined construction and operating licenses the agency has granted for such plants.
License renewals for existing plants “are often contested,” the agency added.
In 60 percent of proceedings where someone sought a hearing over the last two decades, the agency granted the request, and it expects about 15 licensing proceedings a year to draw such requests through 2030.
Under the new rule, evidentiary hearings will start soon after a board admits a challenge, rather than generally waiting until NRC staff finish reviewing the application.
Late challenges also will not count as pending until a board finds good cause for the delay, which generally requires that they rest on new, materially different information and were filed promptly once it became available. The agency wrote that the change will “eliminate the possibility of parties delaying licensing in certain proceedings simply by filing an untimely new or amended contention.”
The agency projects that the changes will save industry, the government and the public a combined, undiscounted $67.4 million from 2026 through 2030.
Oral hearings are no longer required by default. NRC staff also no longer have to compile a hearing file, which the agency called “burdensome” and said “provides little value to the litigation.”
The agency got 33 unique comment submissions on the proposal. The final version dropped planned limits on non-attorneys representing parties and added 10 to 20 days to several deadlines for decisions, according to the rule.
President Donald Trump’s May 2025 executive order on the NRC directed the agency to set deadlines of 18 months at most for final decisions on new reactor applications and to streamline its public hearings.
The ADVANCE Act, which then-President Joe Biden signed in July 2024, also directs the agency to provide for “efficient and timely reviews and proceedings” on licenses.
Appeals to the commission fall outside the executive order’s fixed deadlines, though the agency wrote that it will use internal milestones to promote timely decisions.
Board deadlines for ruling on hearing requests and challenges can be extended only in extraordinary circumstances, according to the rule.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A sailor launches an F-35C Lightning II aircraft assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 147 off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington while underway in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations, Aug. 21, 2026, to support maritime security and stability in the Middle East. (U.S. Navy photo)
Washington has good reasons to direct more attention and resources toward China and the Indo-Pacific. But treating the campaign against ISIS as finished business would be a mistake. The group no longer controls cities or large stretches of territory, yet the conditions that helped it rise have not disappeared.
The immediate danger is not another ISIS army sweeping across Iraq or Syria. It is slower deterioration: local forces that remain dependent on outside support, detention facilities that cannot be secured indefinitely, and international attention moving elsewhere. Recent UN assessments continue to describe ISIS as resilient and adaptive. A future resurgence would probably begin at the margins, not with another dramatic march on Mosul.
Preventing that outcome does not require another large American deployment. It does require Washington to decide what it cannot afford to lose as its footprint shrinks. Intelligence, regional access, capable local partners and the ability to respond quickly matter more than preserving yesterday’s troop numbers.
That distinction should guide any further U.S. drawdown. Fewer American troops do not automatically mean less security. Losing the intelligence, surveillance and advisory capabilities that allow Washington and its partners to see threats developing is another matter.
A smaller U.S. presence should preserve intelligence sharing, regional access, special operations partnerships and a limited ability to reinforce local forces when necessary. The purpose would not be to sustain another open-ended ground campaign. It would be to identify a threat early enough that it never reaches that point.
The choice is not between permanent deployment and walking away. There is considerable room between those positions. The danger comes when reducing the footprint also reduces situational awareness. As the Congressional Research Service has noted in its overview of the Islamic State and U.S. policy, withdrawals and changes in coalition support affect the conditions under which local partners operate. Once Washington loses the ability to recognize a deteriorating security environment, a manageable threat can become far more expensive to contain.
A smaller American role also makes the quality of local partners more important. Operation Inherent Resolve reporting shows how U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria increasingly relies on local forces rather than large American formations. But that model only works if those forces become less dependent on U.S. intelligence, logistics, maintenance and operational planning.
Washington therefore needs a better way to judge whether its assistance is working. Counting raids, missions or trained personnel says little about whether a partner force will continue to function when American support declines.
The harder test is whether partner forces can plan their own operations, keep equipment running, move supplies, retain trained personnel and maintain secure detention facilities. These achievements are less visible than battlefield victories, but they are better indicators of whether a reduced U.S. role will be sustainable. U.S. defense and security-assistance officials should make those capabilities central to partnership reviews and future support.
Military self-sufficiency, however, is not enough. RAND research has stressed that long-term stability also depends on governance and development alongside immediate security requirements. Local forces cannot permanently compensate for political institutions that fail to provide basic order or retain public legitimacy.
That is why stabilization should not be treated as an activity that begins after the security mission ends. In areas where ISIS has operated, targeted stabilization is part of preventing the next crisis. ISIS benefited from places where governments could not reliably provide security, resolve disputes or convince communities that state institutions were working for them. Military pressure could remove fighters from the battlefield, but it could not repair those weaknesses on its own.
Those problems have not disappeared. The International Crisis Group has documented continuing governance and institutional weaknesses in parts of Syria, while UNDP has linked exclusion, limited opportunity and weak governance to vulnerability to violent extremism. The implication for U.S. strategy is straightforward: counterterrorism assistance that ignores these conditions will repeatedly be asked to solve problems it cannot solve on its own.
Washington does not need to fund every local problem or return to a broad nation-building agenda. It should concentrate limited stabilization resources where failures in basic services, local governance or security institutions are most likely to create openings that ISIS can exploit.
Nowhere is the cost of leaving a problem unresolved clearer than in northeastern Syria’s detention facilities and displacement camps. The Congressional Research Service identifies the detention of ISIS-linked individuals and conditions in northeastern Syria as continuing policy issues. Thousands of detainees and family members remain there, leaving local authorities and their international partners with a security challenge that has outlasted the territorial caliphate.
These facilities are not simply a humanitarian concern. Weak security creates opportunities for recruitment and radicalization, while prisons remain obvious targets for operations intended to free experienced fighters. Every year the underlying arrangements remain unresolved, another year in which local partners must take that risk.
The responsibility cannot sit with local forces alone. The State Department should press governments to repatriate their nationals, while the United States and coalition partners continue helping local authorities improve detention security. Governments receiving returnees will also need the legal and institutional capacity to prosecute, rehabilitate, reintegrate or monitor them as appropriately.
Leaving thousands of people indefinite legal and physical uncertainty is not a strategy. It means accepting a vulnerability that ISIS has every reason to exploit.
None of this requires a return to the large deployments of the previous decade. It requires clarity about what a smaller American commitment must still accomplish.
As Washington adjusts its posture in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon and State Department should judge further reductions against three questions: Will the United States retain enough intelligence to recognize an ISIS recovery? Can local forces increasingly operate without American support? And are detention and stabilization problems becoming more manageable rather than merely being left behind?
The territorial caliphate was defeated because the United States and its partners sustained military pressure, built local partnerships and supported stabilization. Drawing down does not require abandoning those lessons. The real test of a smaller U.S. presence will not be how many troops leave the Middle East, but whether Washington can reduce its footprint without recreating the conditions that force it to return.
Cudi Zerey is a management consultant specialising in defence and public-sector transformation. He is also a doctoral researcher whose work focuses on sustainable armed forces and security policy.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

Russian attacks on Ukraine’s electric grid have left more than 600,000 people without power in southeastern Ukraine, according to power company DTEK.