Monday, May 18, 2026

When times are hard, we eat more beans. And it's happening again now by Joe Hernandez

 

A hill of beans isn't so trivial anymore.

In fact, it sounds pretty good.

Interest is surging in the tiny, bulbous legumes sometimes met with a shrug, as more Americans increasingly seek out cheap, healthy and inventive food.

Bean-centric recipes are abundant on social media — yep, there are bean-fluencers on BeanTok. Consumers can now buy trendier bean-based products, and one heirloom-bean service is so popular that it has a waitlist of tens of thousands of people. (Some bean lovers have taken to referring to themselves as the "leguminati.") The children's show Bluey is even being used to market beans to kids.

 

"There definitely is a renaissance," said Tim McGreevy, CEO of USA Pulses, the trade group for the pulse crop industry, which includes dry beans, lentils, chickpeas and dry peas. "Beans can help you feel good. That's their power."

Of course, there's nothing new about Phaseolus vulgaris and other members of the legume family. The primitive crops were critical to early agriculture and, in more recent times, have been a cheaper alternative to animal proteins. Legumes have long been a central feature of many cuisines, from dal in India and other South Asian countries to the beans-and-rice dishes common across Latin America and beyond.

 

But backers say the bean has been cast aside by some for too long and is an ideal solution to some of our modern problems. For one, Americans don't get enough fiber, which is abundant in beans. And as food prices continue to rise, beans offer a low-cost, nutritious protein source that can keep you as full as beef, one study published in The Journal of Nutrition found.

"Here's a food that's affordable. We don't take advantage of it. It's clear that it has health benefits," said Henry J. Thompson, a Colorado State University professor who has studied the effects of beans on human health. "Hey, America, wake up!"

 

What you eat when you can't get your hands on meat"

Beans not only are an ancient crop but were one of the things that made ancient agriculture possible at all, according to Joël Broekaert, author of A History of the World in Twelve Beans.

That's because beans are nitrogen-fixing plants, which means they contain bacteria that replenish nitrogen in the soil. Bean plants help keep soil healthy when grown alongside crops that absorb a lot of nitrogen, such as grains.

"You cannot sustain agriculture on growing grains alone, because they will deplete the soil. You get soil fatigue. They take up all the nutrients," Broekaert said.

 

Bean cultivation dates back thousands of years, and the plants have been a critical part of the human diet throughout history. But at some point in the last century, the increased availability of meat due to large-scale food production shoved beans aside, Broekaert said.

"When we started industrializing meat production, [meat] became much cheaper and much more readily, widely available," he said. "And then beans are, like, that's what you eat when you can't get your hands on meat."

McGreevy said that U.S. consumption of beans, peas and lentils was higher during the first half of the 20th century — particularly during the Great Depression — than it is today and that pulse popularity tends to increase during periods of economic uncertainty.

"We had this big spike in consumption during COVID, because people were cooking from home and it was a shelf-stable food that was affordable," he said.

Beef prices have surged in recent years, and sales of beans have increased. One can of beans, which is typically about 3.5 servings, can cost less than $1.

 

Another reason for beans' growing popularity is their many health benefits. They keep you full, keep you regular, help maintain your blood sugar, lower cholesterol and are associated with a lower risk of cancer.

Beans are well known for being packed with fiber, a nutrient lacking in the typical American diet. One study published in Current Developments in Nutrition found that just 7.4% of American adults are getting the recommended daily amount of fiber.

Thompson said pulse crops such as beans are believed to have a positive effect on the microbes that live in our gut. "What we and others have found is the types of microbes that like to eat pulse fiber are beneficial microbes, and the microbes that tend to be associated with diseases are suppressed by pulse consumption," he said. "There's your benefit, and it's pretty simple."

 What's less known is that some beans also contain a roughly 1-to-1 ratio of fiber and protein, Thompson said. There are around 8 grams of protein in half a cup of cooked kidney, navy, cannellini or black beans.

 

When the Trump administration updated the Dietary Guidelines for Americans in January, beans, peas and lentils were moved from the vegetable category to the protein category. A group of more than 130 physicians said in a joint letter to the administration last year that prioritizing beans, peas and lentils as protein sources was "long overdue" and would help "dispel the myth that plant-based proteins are 'incomplete' or inadequate sources of protein."

(The 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee also recommended emphasizing the consumption of beans, peas and lentils and reducing the amount of red and processed meat that people eat.)

Of course, there is no getting around beans' reputation as the musical fruit. Passing gas can be a side effect of eating beans, thanks to the complex sugar raffinose, which is plentiful in the legumes. But nutrition experts say slowly increasing your fiber intake allows your body to adjust to the nutrient and can help reduce gas.

It's hip to be fabiform (aka bean shaped)

Beans are healthy and cheap, but bean champions are also talking up their tastiness too.

"You should eat beans because they're delicious and you've taken them for granted," said Steve Sando, owner and operator of the heirloom-bean company Rancho Gordo.

Sando founded the company in 2001, when he said there wasn't much interest in heirloom beans — traditional nonhybrid varieties that aren't grown at large scales. But demand has steadily grown since then, and the company has become a darling of the bean world. (Sando said he lovingly refers to the company's devotees as "bean freaks" and the "leguminati.") Rancho Gordo now sells about 2.5 million pounds of beans each year.

 

In 2013, the company, which is based in Napa, Calif., started operating a bean club because Sando thought it would be a humorous play on the wine clubs in the region. Today, the Rancho Gordo Bean Club has 30,000 active members who pay $49.95 plus tax every three months for a box of six 1-pound bags of beans and another Rancho Gordo product. Another 32,000 people are on the waiting list, he said.

Sando said people have responded to the idea that beans themselves are worth eating and that cooking them from dry may prove a fun and rewarding experience (if you've got the time).

"There's a victory in making a pot of beans," he said. "You cooked it for two hours or so, and you turned it into something creamy and delicious."

For Madeline Schapiro, her love of legumes began after she decided to increase the amount of beans in her diet in 2017 in an attempt to deal with undiagnosed health problems she was experiencing.

 

"I started eating a bunch of beans in my college dining hall, and that was nine years ago," Schapiro said. "Beans changed my life. That's an understatement. Beans gave me my life back."

Now a social media "bean-fluencer" who posts under the name Bean Supporter to her tens of thousands of followers, Schapiro extols the health benefits of beans in her videos while showcasing their (often unexpected) versatility in the kitchen. Some of her recipes include lentil granola, bean-ana bread and a mung bean scallion pancake. She has even started hosting potluck-style bean meetups in Berkeley, Calif., which have drawn dozens of attendees who've brought dishes like pinto bean yogurt.

"Beans are truly one of the biggest superfoods there is," she said. "I just hope people can realize that, because I think one of the most common misconceptions in our food system is that, to eat healthy, you have to spend a lot of money."

 

The global plot to get you to eat more beans

Last year, USA Pulses announced that it aims to double both the American production and consumption of pulses by 2030. (The United Nations kicked off a similar campaign in 2015 to double global pulse consumption by 2028.)

McGreevy, of USA Pulses, who also owns a Washington state farm where he grows chickpeas and lentils as well as other crops, said the health and environmental effects of growing and eating pulses are unambiguous.

"The science is very clear, and it's been clear for decades and decades and thousands of years, actually," he said.

To achieve those goals, McGreevy said USA Pulses is working to effect public policy changes such as the new dietary guidelines and also collaborate with food manufacturers on ready-to-eat products incorporating pulses, such as lentil and chickpea pastas.

The group is also running a public awareness campaign to urge Americans to eat a half cup of pulses each day. (The U.S. Agriculture Department recommends three to four servings of protein per day for a 2,000-calorie diet. One-half cup of beans, peas or lentils is one serving of protein.)

Thompson, of Colorado State University, said people who want to reap the benefits of pulses should eat a "therapeutic amount" of 1.5 cups per day, which is equal to about one 14.5-ounce can, and ensure they are getting a variety.

"You go to Qdoba, and [they say] 'Black beans or pinto?'" he said. "What do I always say? I'd like both, please."

The Iran war reminds us: we’ll never be energy-independent with fossil fuels by Lloyd Doggett and Michael Shank

 Energy security comes from using local, renewable resources to power, heat and cool communities, as Ukraine is doing

 Donald Trump’s unjustified war on Iran and the resulting global fuel crisis is a continuing reminder that true energy security and independence will continue to elude us so long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels.

Whether it’s wars over oil and gas resource access or attacks on fossil fuel power plants and energy grids, this reliance on finite resources only worsens a country’s threat profile. News this month of Russia’s deadly attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Russian drones swarming Ukrainian power stations, and Kyiv running out of time to prepare for another winter of attacks on its energy grid illustrates this urgency.

No country will be energy-secure or independent as long as its fuel supply remains finite and fossilized and its power plants and energy grids centralized and fossil fuel-dependent. Those are sitting ducks, targets very vulnerable to attack by adversaries.

 There is another way to bolster energy security and independence: decarbonized and decentralized energy. Using local, renewable resources to power, heat and cool a community, with battery storage for backup, provides immediate relief from being precariously power plant-dependent or grid-dependent.

That’s what Ukrainian communities are increasingly doing in response to Russian attacks on their fossil-fueled power plants and energy grids. In direct response to Russia’s war, municipalities all across Ukraine are making the switch fast.

With the Iran war accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the gains from energy transition are obvious: countries like Spain are rapidly transitioning to renewables – better insulating themselves from gas price shocks and better protecting themselves from future grid-wide blackouts.

In this global rush to get off fossil fuels, however, we can’t leave those on the frontlines behind. With no end in sight for Russian aggression, more Ukrainian power plants and energy grids will be bombed, leaving more without power, heat and water. Many Ukrainians who were fortunate enough to have heat this past winter had already made the switch to solar power, heat pumps and battery storage backup, thanks to the help of local non-profit organizations like EcoAction and Ecoclub, and donors abroad.

Efforts like the Hromada Project, which is named after the Ukrainian term for “community”, will be essential in helping Ukrainians weather the war by connecting local nongovernmental organizations in Ukraine to public- and private-sector support from around the world

 

That’s exactly what our government should be doing: helping communities around the world be more energy secure and independent, sourcing their power locally with renewables, storing energy in batteries for backup, and electrifying everything to make the transition seamless. That’s certainly what is happening in China, which has dominated the global wind, solar, battery and electric vehicle markets as a result.

Instead, Trump and his Republican followers seek to keep the US addicted to fossilized thinking. Weaponizing the Department of Defense to stall onshore wind development, repealing tax incentives for renewable energy development and using taxpayer dollars to bribe clean energy developers to abandon projects endangers our ability to adopt secure, affordable and clean energy technologies now. Forcing Americans to remain dependent on ageing fossil fuel infrastructure exposes us to increasing residential electricity rates and riskier grid conditions.

Before another war is waged, and American defense budgets doubled, now is the time to double down on what will make us truly secure and independent. Transitioning off the fuels that start wars, and transitioning on to the energies that are decentralized, infinite and available in every community and country on this planet: that’s what real freedom looks like – and it’s all within our grasp.

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

The Late-Night Truth Social Storms That Offer a Window Into the President's Mind; A WSJ analysis of thousands of posts found that the president uses the social-media platform to spread conspiracy theories and attack his adversaries by DeBarros, Anthony ; Linskey, Annie

 

WASHINGTON—Monday was a typical day for President Trump. He took questions in the Oval Office. He met with members of Indiana University's football team. And he had dinner with law-enforcement officers in the White House Rose Garden.

After the sun went down, another familiar ritual began: late-night social-media posting. The president's Truth Social account posted 55 messages between 10:14 p.m. and 1:12 a.m.

The messages, mostly reposts from other accounts, falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen , aired frustrations from anonymous social-media users that Democrats hadn't been indicted by the Justice Department and called for the arrest of former President Barack Obama.

The activity is emblematic of Trump's account, which operates as a nearly round-the-clock, high-volume amplification system that blends his own voice with a network of partisan and fringe content. Since the start of his second term, Trump's Truth Social account has ballooned to 12.6 million followers, up from about 8.6 million. Trump—with the help of staff—has posted at least 8,800 times, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Late-night bursts and high-frequency binges

Monday was one of 44 similar spates of a dozen or more Truth Social posts published from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. since Trump returned to the White House. On Dec. 1, from 8:17 p.m. until just before midnight, the president's account posted nearly 160 times—more posts than on any other day in his second term.

The bursts of social-media activity feature content from other accounts—including images, videos and text—that appeal to the president and his team. The nighttime missives often include some of the president's sharpest and most divisive messaging, amplifying conspiracy theories, describing migrants as a threat to the country, threatening to punish his adversaries and mocking his opponents—all while giving a platform to obscure, anonymous accounts.

The account's most active nights have been driven by posts featuring videos and screengrabs from users on X and other social-media platforms. For example, in the early-morning hours of Jan. 5, days after a successful military operation in Venezuela, Trump's account posted nearly 90 times in the span of an hour.

The posts included a video clip of Trump saying that Somalia isn't a nation , "it's just people walking around killing each other." Since January 2025, the account has published more than 120 posts critical of the country or its people, including posts disparaging Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, a prominent member of Minnesota's Somali community.

The posts leave the public with a stew of presidential musings and reposts, many of which are published while Americans are asleep. Most of the messages get little scrutiny, disappearing into the cascade of posts on his account.

The engine behind the posts

Natalie Harp, Trump's executive assistant, plays an integral role in Trump's Truth Social activity. She brings the president stacks of printed-out draft social-media posts for his approval. The proposed posts often recycle content from other accounts that Harp or advisers think would appeal to Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

Harp then logs onto the president's account—at times outside of normal work hours—and posts batches of Trump-approved messages, the people said. Trump personally signs off on all of the content posted to his account. While Harp often posts content on Trump's behalf, the president posts some messages himself, White House officials said.

Earlier this year, at Trump's direction, Harp posted a video that included racist imagery depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes, and an AI-generated image of Trump as a Christ-like figure , people familiar with the matter said.

Trump later deleted both posts after facing bipartisan criticism. The president told reporters that he didn't see the portion of the video that included the imagery of the Obamas before he signed off on the post. A White House official blamed the episode on an editing error.

Harp has frustrated some White House officials because she typically doesn't share draft posts with the chief of staff's office, communications aides or national-security officials. Harp has told others she works for Trump and only listens to him.

"Truth Social has never been hotter, and it's because President Trump offers his unfiltered and direct thoughts to the American people, without the biased media taking him out of context," White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said in a statement. "We don't discuss internal deliberations of how the process works, but no other social-media tool has been more effective than Truth."

Praise, venting and foreign policy

Across thousands of posts, the president's account toggles through various modes: It celebrates and praises Trump, it savages his enemies, and it amplifies his frustrations about immigration, crime, culture and the 2020 election.

Trump's account often shares AI images that cast his opponents as cartoonish and himself as powerful.

Sometimes Trump's attacks are aimed at named opponents: Democrats, governors, mayors, federal judges, journalists, Republicans who cross him. Other posts target groups the president is at odds with: criminals, "woke" universities, transgender students, cartels. Roughly 1 in 10 of the account's text-based posts call a person or group a name, such as "crooked," "sleazebag," "loser" or "low IQ." The phrase "Fake News" appears nearly 140 times.

And then there is the presidency itself, broadcast in real time. Foreign-policy announcements, endorsements and official acts have made up nearly a fifth of his feed. Since fighting with Iran began on Feb. 28, the account has posted at least 240 texts, videos and other messages about the war and the Middle East.

The rest of the account's content consists of shares: screengrabs, videos and memes lifted from elsewhere. A few come from named figures, such as conservative commentators Marc Thiessen and Eric Daugherty, Utah Sen. Mike Lee and billionaire Elon Musk. But much of the content can be traced to anonymous accounts including @TheSCIF, @WallStreetApes and @NathanielSami, a user whose X profile says they are based in South Asia.

Why Obama’s Presidential ‘Library’ May Be the Last Normal One by Philip Elliott

 Barack Obama is back to making headlines with long magazine profiles and going viral with carefully choreographed made-for-social-media videos. He’s urging Democrats to stand up to an unpopular wartime President and raising boatloads of cash that outpace the GDP of some nations. He’s encouraging his base to believe in big hope and change, while peddling must-have merch and tickets to his big events.

No, you did not get in a time machine back to 2008. It’s all happening. Again.

The 44th President is about to open his presidential campus—yes, it’s more than just a library—and its dean is about to be ubiquitous as if he were back on the ballot. But what is remarkable about the Return of Obama is not just the price tag—$850 million and counting for a conference center, a vegetable garden, and, yes, an NBA-regulation basketball court—or the physical size of his 19-acre complex on the South Side of Chicago. (It’s not that big for a presidential center, Obama allies argue; George W. Bush’s $250 million complex in Dallas clocks in at 23 acres, including 15 acres of wildflowers.) It’s that Obama’s perch might be the last one to manifest in a way Americans have come to expect in a post-presidency footprint. Obama may be back again, but that does not mean there’s necessarily going to be another such again for his successors, either by design or misstep.

 

President Donald Trump is already promoting a skyscraper in Miami that will house his post-White House presence. An AI-feeling sizzle reel drew gasps and mockery when it was published. It’s got the gold escalators, a decommissioned Air Force One, Mar a Lago-style terraces that make it all seem more look like a glitzy gathering spot for galas than a research hub for future scholars looking for primary-source documents scarred by Sharpie notes in the margins. 

Fundraising is underway for that project, as his inner circle understands that Trump’s ability to raise cash might be at its peak as he sits in the Oval Office and ready to do deals. Meta and ABC News have already ponied up a combined $40 million to settle complaints of unfairness from the President himself that were decried by critics as thinly-veiled shakedowns. The money, after legal fees, will seed Trump’s library ambitions, which could end up topping $1 billion and may end up housing a Trump Hotel outpost.

 

"I don't believe in building libraries or museums," Trump recently told reporters. "Could be [an] office, but it's most likely going to be a hotel with a beautiful building underneath and a 747 Air Force One in the lobby."

Meanwhile, former President Joe Biden remains in the very early stages of planting his sapling of a post-presidency in Delaware. (A city has yet to even be announced, let alone a site.) To say fundraising has been slow to come together would be generous; Biden’s advisers have aimed for $200 million for his building but ended last year with just $4 million, all of it transferred from a surplus Inauguration fund from 2020. Planners say they are gunning for an $11 million target by the end of next year but around Washington, the thinking is that Biden might end up having to settle for a piece of planned University of Delaware classroom project already named Biden Hall.

Most Presidents save the legacy-building cash grab for their second term, waiting a few months so as to give re-election donors a reprieve. Up until summer of 2024, Biden thought he was heading into a re-election campaign that would give him plenty of time to hoover up dollars after his second Inauguration in 2025. Instead, Biden became an annoyance to the Democratic Party that found itself scrambling to assemble a 100-day sprint for Kamala Harris. Donors are not rushing to help the 83-year-old great grandfather at this point.

“Presidents and their supporters have a finite time in which to raise enough money to ensure they can write their own history and control their legacy for decades to come, and they do everything they can to take advantage of that time,” writes Anthony Clark, a former Hill aide who wrote a fascinating history of presidential libraries, The Last Campaign. “This isn’t history, and it’s not education. It’s a sales pitch.”

He isn’t wrong. 

Why do we have presidential libraries?

Every President dating back to Herbert Hoover has gotten their own government-funded library to house—and protect—their archives when they leave office. But where people can actually visit them in the way we usually think of them—museums with exhibits, replicas of the Oval Office as decorated by the boss, dresses worn by First Ladies—is actually a private enterprise, especially when it comes to the gobs of cash needed to fund the construction. The National Archives and Records Administration takes control over the state papers and official records from the government helmed by the President for his terms and can pitch on some maintenance costs and research staff, but the shiny monuments to the Commander in Chief are actually privately funded and run. So, no, your tax dollars aren’t funding the dozens of works of art commissioned for Obama’s campus and aren’t expected to be used to build that hulking, gold-hued statue of Trump in his promotional video. 

Put in plain speak: the Archives protects the historical record and the fun part is out of the former President’s pocket. Under the Presidential Records Act, all government material remains the government’s when a President leaves office. The librarians regulate the record and work with the President’s people to decide what to display—but not what to sell in the gift shops.

That’s how John F. Kennedy’s handwritten edits to “Ask Not” inaugural address and Jacqueline Kennedy’s letters arranging the funeral after her husband’s assassination live alongside a 3 billion-year-old lunar rock in the display about the space program in that library in Boston. Or how Richard Nixon’s Yorba Linda, Calif., library puts a signed 1972 SALT I nuclear treaty signed by both the U.S. leader and Soviet chief Leonid Brezhnev on the same campus as his version of The Beast limo and Marine One. Or how Jimmy Carter’s notes on the Iranian hostage crisis, his memos on the Panama Canal’s transfer, and his notes from the Camp David Accords are under the same roof as his Nobel Peace Prize and the infamous “Red Phone” he took as a souvenir. 

Right now, the contents of Biden’s presidential library are actually in a government storage site in College Park, Maryland. Biden will have access to them when he decides where he will host visitors looking to see his narrative about his leadership during Covid, his domestic agenda like the energy and infrastructure laws, and major foreign policy moments like supporting Ukraine and leaving Afghanistan. 

The bulk of Trump’s records from his first term also went to a government warehouse in the D.C. region, although their provenance is sure to be a matter of debate. During Trump’s first term, there was a team of staffers tasked with reassembling documents that, despite a law requiring them to be sent to the Archives, had been torn up or shredded. And Trump denied reports included in Maggie Habermann’s must-read book on the President that White House toilets were clogged with documents Trump wanted to dump.

And then, of course, there were the boxes and boxes of material Trump hoarded in Mar a Lago, including matters that were highly classified and considered sensitive. (Biden, too, discovered he had secrets in his garage and cooperated with investigators. Unlike Trump, Biden did not go to court to argue to keep the material.)

How Obama is shaping his own legacy

Neither Trump’s nor Biden’s post-presidency projects, at least right now, are going to look like what has come before. Obama’s is by far the most expensive of the nation’s presidential libraries, but is otherwise much in the mold of those of Presidents George W. Bush in Texas or Bill Clinton in Arkansas. Those still-impressive temples to the former Presidents are full of documents and photographs on display from their terms, plus behind-the-scenes stories about key positive moments of their presidencies. The other stuff? Well, let’s just say when I last stopped at the Bush library on the campus of Southern Methodist University, the whole tale of Hurricane Katrina and the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 took up little more than a 12-foot putt. And when I stopped in the Clinton library at the start of Hillary Clinton’s second run for President, it was full of partisan whitewashing, including a dig at independent counsel Kenneth Starr (“a conservative activist who had never before prosecuted a case”) and Clinton’s resulting impeachment (“no constitutional or legal basis”).

None of this is particularly egregious given the mythmaking role of these operations, which force the professionals from the archives to co-exist with the partisan allies of the President in question. At least in normal situations. 

The Obama operation does not plan on housing the paper archives on-site and instead will leave those in the Archives’ warehouses. Instead, Obama says the entire collection will be digitized and available for scholars to look from anywhere. So, no, it actually isn’t the Obama Library, although the City of Chicago is building a new branch of the local library on the site for neighbors.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt kicked off the whole enterprise as we know it today with 13 presidential libraries around the nation. FDR built a presidential library in New York’s Hudson River Valley near his home to house his papers close and then donated it to the government. “To bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men living in the future, a nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its people so to learn from the past that they can gain in judgement for the creation of the future,” he said at the library’s Hyde Park dedication in 1941.

It’s a far cry from the current approach to these libraries that now come with hype reels but in practice are really, really nice community centers. On Monday, to mark Star Wars Day—”May the Fourth Be With You”—Obama released a video promoting the opening of his library with Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. 

“Mark, I am glad you are here. I want to tell you about someone,” Obama says in the video. “A young person born into ordinary circumstances but restless, unsatisfied. A kid with big dreams. A bit of a rebel. They join a scrappy group of underdogs and set out to change things,” the former president continues.

Hamill gets the nod to the Star Wars origin story: “By blowing up a giant space laser?”

Obama, now 64, leans into the dad-joke vibe, saying it’s a campus for the next generation, “a place to come together, get inspired, and become a Force—for change.”

The public is going to get its first in-person look on June 19. The sales window opened on Wednesday is already sold out into late July. Tickets are $30 to visit what could be the last traditional presidential library in a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Russian ship that sank near Spain may have been carrying nuclear reactors to North Korea Sam Jones in Madrid

 North Korea

Western military may have targeted the Ursa Major, which went down after mysterious explosions, reports suggest

 

A Russian cargo ship that suffered a series of mysterious explosions before eventually sinking off the south-east coast of Spain 17 months ago may have been carrying nuclear submarine reactors destined for North Korea, according to reports.

The Ursa Major, a 142-metre-long, Russian-flagged ship owned by the state-linked Oboronlogistics company, was purportedly sailing from St Petersburg to Vladivostok in the far east of Russia when it sank 62 nautical miles off the coast of Murcia a little before midnight on 23 December 2024.

Eleven hours earlier, Spain’s maritime rescue and security service, Sasemar, had dispatched a helicopter, a fast rescue boat, and a tugboat to the Ursa Major, which put out a distress call at 12.53pm.

Other vessels in the area noted that the Russian vessel, which had slowed dramatically over the previous 24 hours, was listing badly and saw its crew abandoning ship. The crew members told rescuers that there had been three explosions in the ship’s engine room.

 

Spanish attempts to assist the Ursa Major were curtailed at 8.07pm that evening when a Russian warship arrived, took over operations and ordered the two Sasemar boats to withdraw to a distance of two nautical miles.

According to a Spanish government document that was released three months ago in response to parliamentary questions over the incident, the Russian warship then launched flares over the Ursa Major. A report in the Murcia newspaper La Verdad said the flares could have been deployed to blind the infrared channels of the intelligence satellites that were monitoring the incident.

A CNN investigation into the sinking of the vessel noted that “four similar seismic signatures … the pattern of which resembled underwater mines or overground quarry blasts” were heard just after the flares were fired. By 11.20pm, the Ursa Major had sunk and now lies at a depth of 2,500 metres. Two crew members are thought to have died in the initial explosions, while 14 were rescued.

Although the vessel was officially transporting “non-dangerous merchandise” – including 129 shipping containers, two cranes, and two large maintenance hole covers – its route and sinking raised the suspicions of the Spanish authorities.

Under questioning, the captain of the Ursa Major eventually told Spanish investigators that the “manhole covers” onboard his ship were “nuclear reactor components similar to those used by submarines”, but that no nuclear fuel was being transported.

 

Investigators had also noticed two huge blue containers – each estimated to weigh about 65 tonnes – on the stern of the ship in satellite photographs.

“These would therefore be two loads almost impossible to transport along the winding roads of Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan between the two cities served by the Ursa Major,” said the report in La Verdad.

“That mysterious undeclared cargo would certainly justify a voyage of more than 15,000km by sea between St Petersburg and Vladivostok.”

 

A source familiar with the investigation told CNN that the Russian captain believed he would be diverted to the North Korean port of Rason to deliver the two reactors.

While the incident remains a mystery, CNN suggested the sinking of the Ursa Major “may mark a rare and high-stakes intervention by a western military to prevent Russia from sending an upgrade in nuclear technology to a key ally, North Korea”. The network noted that the Russian ship set sail just two months after the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, had sent troops to assist with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

CNN and La Verdad reported that a 50cm by 50cm hole found in the vessel’s hull – with the damaged metal facing inwards – could have been made by a super-fast weapon known as a supercavitating torpedo.

“Only the United States, a few Nato allies, Russia and Iran are believed to have this kind of high-speed torpedo, which fires air ahead of the weapon to reduce the drag of the water,” said CNN.

“The source familiar with the [Spanish] investigation said it concluded the use of such a device would fit with the size of the hole in the Ursa Major’s hull, and that it could have made a noiseless impact resulting in the sudden slowing of the boat on 22 December.”

CNN said there had been a “flurry of recent military activity” around the ship’s remains, with US nuclear “sniffer” aircraft overflying the scene twice in the past year, and a Russian spy ship setting off four further explosions in the wreckage a week after it sank.

A report by Oboronlogistics claimed that the Ursa Major fell prey to what it termed “a targeted terrorist attack”.

Spain’s interior, foreign and defence ministries have been contacted for comment.

Do we absorb information better on paper, rather than screens? It depends on the screen by Lili Yu& Erik D Reichle

  

The Swedish government recently announced it was moving from the classroom use of digital devices back to physical books. It cited concerns over declining test scores and increasing screen time.

Are these concerns well founded? And what does the science of reading say about the possible consequences of reading on digital devices versus books?

To address these questions, it’s worth remembering that, although reading might appear to be an easy task, this impression is false. Reading is arguably the most difficult task one must learn – one that requires years of formal education and practice to master. In contrast to spoken language, it is a skill we are not biologically predisposed to learn. 

 

Why is reading so difficult?

To understand why reading is difficult, one must first understand the physiology of reading.

As you are reading this sentence, your eyes are making a series of rapid movements, called saccades, from one word to the next. During these saccades, the processing of visual information is suppressed and is only available during brief intervals, called fixations, when the eyes are stationary.

Experiments that measure readers’ eye movements have shown we fixate most words because our capacity to extract visual information during each fixation is extremely limited.

In languages like English that are read from left to right, our capacity to perceive the features that distinguish letters is limited to a small region of the visual field called the perceptual span. This span extends from 2-3 letter spaces to the left of fixation to 8-12 letter spaces to the right of fixation.

The span’s asymmetry reflects the movement of attention through the text. It extends to the left in languages like Arabic, which are read from right to left. The size of the span is smaller for dense writing systems, such as Chinese.

We also know from eye-tracking and brain-imaging experiments that words require time to identify. Our best estimates suggest visual information requires 60 milliseconds to propagate from the eyes to the brain and words then require an additional 100-300 milliseconds to identify. (A millsecond is one-thousandth of a second). 

These constraints limit the maximum rate of reading to 300-400 words per minute, depending on the difficulty of the text and one’s level of comprehension.


The physiology of reading is complicated, requiring a high level of mental coordination. Jess Morgan/unsplash, CC BY

Speed-reading advocates, who falsely promise faster reading speeds, teach you how to skim a text. Comprehension declines at a rate inversely proportional to the gain in speed.

Importantly, the upper limit for reading speed requires years of practice to attain, because it requires the brain systems that support vision, attention, word identification, language processing and eye movements to operate in a highly coordinated manner. Anything that prevents this coordination will therefore reduce comprehension.

Consequences of digital reading

So what are the likely consequences of digital reading?

With some devices, such as e-readers, there is little reason to suspect digital reading differs from the reading of books, because both formats support the mental processes required for skilled reading.

The more questionable devices are those introducing distractions (such as news websites interspersed with ads) or which have suboptimal formatting, such as centre-justified text with large or unequal-sized gaps between words. The latter is rarely a feature of paper-based texts.

Although the consequences of these two factors are under-researched, enough has been learned about human cognition to make informed predictions.

For example, images and audio unrelated to a text such as pop-up ads can capture attention. Although most adults have developed a level of executive control sufficient to ignore such distractions, young children have not.

The implications for a child who is struggling to understand the meaning of a text are obvious. Their comprehension will suffer to the extent that additional effort is required to ignore distractions, or if they do not yet have the mental coordination to understand the text has been disrupted.


Sunday, May 10, 2026

Why Trump’s $2 billion buyoff to cancel offshore wind farms is a bad deal for American taxpayers and the US energy supply

 

The U.S. is in a bizarre situation in 2026: It’s facing a looming energy shortage, yet the Trump administration is making deals to pay offshore wind developers nearly US$2 billion in taxpayer money to walk away from energy projects.

These politically motivated moves are costing Americans far more than just the buyouts.

Communities have been laying the groundwork for offshore energy projects for years. Offshore wind development brings jobs and economic development that reshape regional economies, with the scale of public and private investment reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars over years. East Coast communities have built up ports to support the industry and launched job-training programs to prepare workers. Construction, maintenance and shipping businesses have sprung up, along with secondary businesses that support the industry.

 

Losing the projects, and the threat of losing other planned wind farms, will also likely mean higher energy prices. And while some offshore wind farms are moving ahead, developers must account for both lost momentum and increased uncertainty from the Trump administration.

As a result, Americans will bear the economic brunt of these decisions for decades ahead.

How America got to this point

To understand how the U.S. arrived in this predicament, let’s take a step back.

In March 2023, leaders from three U.S. federal agencies under the Biden administration met with the CEOs from American technology and manufacturing giants Microsoft, Amazon, Ford, GM, Dow Chemical and GE at the annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, under the banner of “Affordable, Reliable and Secure American-Made Energy”.

They agreed on a key point: The nation was staring down a severe shortage of electrons to drive American business forward.

Fortunately, solutions abounded. Enormous amounts of onshore wind and solar power had been deployed during the previous five years. More than 80% of all new power additions to the U.S. grid had come from these two sources.

Particularly exciting were plans to build large offshore wind farms up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Taken together, the wind farms would generate 30 gigawatts of new power by 2030, enough to power more than 10 million homes and reduce volatility in energy pricing thanks to long-term power purchase agreements.

The U.S. had one small wind farm at the time, off Rhode Island, and two wind turbines off Virginia, but Europe had been operating large offshore wind projects for over two decades and was building more.

In the months following the 2023 meeting, leasing and permitting for the U.S. mega projects continued, and in some areas construction got underway.

Then, the Trump administration arrived in 2025. As president, Donald Trump immediately issued an executive order to halt offshore wind lease sales and any approvals, permits or loans for wind farms. He had made his disdain for wind power clear ever since he lost a fight to stop construction of a small wind farm near his golf course in Scotland in the 2010s.

After a federal judge declared Trump’s executive order unconstitutional in December 2025, the administration shifted strategies.

In March 2026, news outlets began reporting on deals struck in which the federal government would pay three offshore wind project developers hundreds of millions of dollars to cease development of their permitted projects, agree not to build others and repurpose the funds toward fossil fuel projects.

According to reported discussions involving the French energy company TotalEnergies, the money would be paid out through the Department of Interior’s Judgment Fund, intended for payment of legal settlements, despite there not being any active litigation with TotalEnergies.

The other projects agreeing to Trump’s buyouts as of early May were Golden State Wind, in California, and Bluepoint Wind, off New Jersey and New York. Both are co-owned by Ocean Winds, a joint venture of the French energy company Engie and EDP Renewables, headquartered in Spain. The California Energy Commission and members of Congress are now investigating the moves.

Offshore wind means local investment

Regardless of whether these buyouts are even legal, the losing parties will be the American taxpayers and a U.S. economy that needs more electrons on the grid, not fewer.

One analysis projected that deploying 40 GW along the U.S. East Coast by 2035 would generate roughly $140 billion in investment, much of it concentrated in port infrastructure and supply chain development.

New York in early 2026 announced a $300 million state grant program to expand port infrastructure supporting offshore wind. And the New Jersey Wind Port represents an investment exceeding $600 million to enable manufacturing and assembly of turbines.

 

In 2025, California state lawmakers authorized $225.7 million in spending for offshore wind ports and related facilities.

For these projects to pay off for local communities, however, the regions will need to see the development of wind farms.

Killing jobs

The cancellations of the planned projects also take jobs away from hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

The construction and installation of offshore wind turbines requires the expertise of skilled electrical workers, pipe fitters, welders, pile drivers, iron workers, machinists and carpenters.

Future offshore wind costs depend on investments today. As infrastructure is established and expertise grows, each subsequent project becomes easier to build, less risky and less expensive.

This pattern is already evident globally: The levelized cost of electricity from offshore wind globally fell by 62% between 2010 and 2024.

Canceling projects or buying back leases eliminates the electricity those projects would have generated. It also slows the accumulation of experience, scale and supply chain maturity that drive costs down over time.

The result is higher costs for future projects and for electricity ratepayers.

An energy crisis

Developing a robust offshore wind industry provides resilience in the face of an unstable global energy market.

Future U.S. and global energy demand is projected to grow significantly, largely driven by the rapid expansion of AI data centers and electrification of vehicles, homes and businesses.

The U.S. is in a bizarre situation in 2026: It’s facing a looming energy shortage, yet the Trump administration is making deals to pay offshore wind developers nearly US$2 billion in taxpayer money to walk away from energy projects.

These politically motivated moves are costing Americans far more than just the buyouts.

Communities have been laying the groundwork for offshore energy projects for years. Offshore wind development brings jobs and economic development that reshape regional economies, with the scale of public and private investment reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars over years. East Coast communities have built up ports to support the industry and launched job-training programs to prepare workers. Construction, maintenance and shipping businesses have sprung up, along with secondary businesses that support the industry.

An aerial view of a port showing the towers of future wind turbines and blades in a rack on a ship nearby.
Offshore wind farms bring jobs and economic development. State Pier in New London, Conn., serves as a staging site for wind farm construction and supplies. AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey

Losing the projects, and the threat of losing other planned wind farms, will also likely mean higher energy prices. And while some offshore wind farms are moving ahead, developers must account for both lost momentum and increased uncertainty from the Trump administration.

As a result, Americans will bear the economic brunt of these decisions for decades ahead.

How America got to this point

To understand how the U.S. arrived in this predicament, let’s take a step back.

In March 2023, leaders from three U.S. federal agencies under the Biden administration met with the CEOs from American technology and manufacturing giants Microsoft, Amazon, Ford, GM, Dow Chemical and GE at the annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, under the banner of “Affordable, Reliable and Secure American-Made Energy”.

They agreed on a key point: The nation was staring down a severe shortage of electrons to drive American business forward.

Fortunately, solutions abounded. Enormous amounts of onshore wind and solar power had been deployed during the previous five years. More than 80% of all new power additions to the U.S. grid had come from these two sources.

Particularly exciting were plans to build large offshore wind farms up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Taken together, the wind farms would generate 30 gigawatts of new power by 2030, enough to power more than 10 million homes and reduce volatility in energy pricing thanks to long-term power purchase agreements.

The U.S. had one small wind farm at the time, off Rhode Island, and two wind turbines off Virginia, but Europe had been operating large offshore wind projects for over two decades and was building more.

In the months following the 2023 meeting, leasing and permitting for the U.S. mega projects continued, and in some areas construction got underway.

Do experts have something to add to public debate?

A map showing many U.S. wind farm lease areas along the East Coast.
A map of offshore wind lease areas shows how many companies have paid the U.S. to lease areas of ocean for offshore wind farms. A few wind farms off New England are already operating. The lease areas where the Trump administration used taxpayer money to persuade companies to drop their wind farm plans include two TotalEnergies leases – Attentive Energy, off New Jersey, and a lease area off South Carolina – and Bluepoint Wind, also off New Jersey. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Then, the Trump administration arrived in 2025. As president, Donald Trump immediately issued an executive order to halt offshore wind lease sales and any approvals, permits or loans for wind farms. He had made his disdain for wind power clear ever since he lost a fight to stop construction of a small wind farm near his golf course in Scotland in the 2010s.

After a federal judge declared Trump’s executive order unconstitutional in December 2025, the administration shifted strategies.

In March 2026, news outlets began reporting on deals struck in which the federal government would pay three offshore wind project developers hundreds of millions of dollars to cease development of their permitted projects, agree not to build others and repurpose the funds toward fossil fuel projects.

According to reported discussions involving the French energy company TotalEnergies, the money would be paid out through the Department of Interior’s Judgment Fund, intended for payment of legal settlements, despite there not being any active litigation with TotalEnergies.

The other projects agreeing to Trump’s buyouts as of early May were Golden State Wind, in California, and Bluepoint Wind, off New Jersey and New York. Both are co-owned by Ocean Winds, a joint venture of the French energy company Engie and EDP Renewables, headquartered in Spain. The California Energy Commission and members of Congress are now investigating the moves.

Offshore wind means local investment

Regardless of whether these buyouts are even legal, the losing parties will be the American taxpayers and a U.S. economy that needs more electrons on the grid, not fewer.

One analysis projected that deploying 40 GW along the U.S. East Coast by 2035 would generate roughly $140 billion in investment, much of it concentrated in port infrastructure and supply chain development.

New York in early 2026 announced a $300 million state grant program to expand port infrastructure supporting offshore wind. And the New Jersey Wind Port represents an investment exceeding $600 million to enable manufacturing and assembly of turbines.

Two workers stand on a dock as wind turbine blades are loaded on a ship with a crane.
Workers in New London, Conn., prepare a generator and its blades for transport to South Fork Wind’s offshore wind farm in 2023. To build an offshore wind farm requires manufacturing jobs, parts suppliers, dockworkers, crane operators, ship crews, as well as the wind farm construction crews and maintenance teams and many more businesses and their employees. AP Photo/Seth Wenig

In 2025, California state lawmakers authorized $225.7 million in spending for offshore wind ports and related facilities.

For these projects to pay off for local communities, however, the regions will need to see the development of wind farms.

Killing jobs

The cancellations of the planned projects also take jobs away from hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

The construction and installation of offshore wind turbines requires the expertise of skilled electrical workers, pipe fitters, welders, pile drivers, iron workers, machinists and carpenters.

Future offshore wind costs depend on investments today. As infrastructure is established and expertise grows, each subsequent project becomes easier to build, less risky and less expensive.

This pattern is already evident globally: The levelized cost of electricity from offshore wind globally fell by 62% between 2010 and 2024.

Canceling projects or buying back leases eliminates the electricity those projects would have generated. It also slows the accumulation of experience, scale and supply chain maturity that drive costs down over time.

The result is higher costs for future projects and for electricity ratepayers.

An energy crisis

Developing a robust offshore wind industry provides resilience in the face of an unstable global energy market.

Future U.S. and global energy demand is projected to grow significantly, largely driven by the rapid expansion of AI data centers and electrification of vehicles, homes and businesses.

Limiting the supply of homegrown energy will increase energy costs for Americans, especially in the regions where the wind farms were supposed to be located – New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and California.

With the federal buyouts, the U.S. is losing 8 GW of planned electricity generation, enough to power more than 3 million homes. That generation needs to be replaced by other energy sources and expanding power transmission lines that can take seven to 10 years to get permits for and build out. The leased projects were on their way to providing new clean power generation fairly quickly. Eliminating them restarts the project clock.

Reliance on dirtier, conventional forms of power generation will increase along with foreign energy imports, such as electricity delivered from Canada to New York, leading to higher and more volatile electricity prices.

Evidence from Europe shows that offshore wind can also reduce electricity costs for consumers by lowering wholesale prices and reducing dependence on fossil fuels and their volatile prices.

Vineyard Wind I, an offshore wind farm completed in 2026, with 806 MW of generation – enough to power about 400,000 homes – is projected to save Massachusetts customers about $1.4 billion on electricity bills over the next 20 years. With a fixed-price, 20-year contract, the project also lowered prices during cold snaps and peak demand for gas, reducing volatility and cost.

From jobs to local economic development to power costs, we believe canceling these offshore wind projects is a bad deal for American taxpayers.