MP Materials, Backed By 15% Pentagon Stake, Produces First Rare Earth Magnets for GM

     In July 2025, the Pentagon purchased a $400 million, 15% stake in the company MP Materials for the production of rare earth magnets, which have important military uses. The U.S. government committed to a 10-year, $110/kg neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) offtake agreement. With deliveries expected very soon, the company was able to shorten the estimated time to production from 8 years to 5 years.

     24/7 Wall St. notes:

“The deal also included a $150 million loan to expand Mountain Pass and a 10-year commitment to buy all of the company's output at $110/kg for neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr), the key rare earth input in permanent magnets.”

     MP Materials has a rare earth magnet manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and produced its first magnets earlier this year and recently delivered the first ones to GM, its first committed customer. These are the first rare earth magnets produced in the U.S. The government also provided funding to continue the redevelopment of Mountain Pass Mine in California, the county’s only rare earth mine and processing facility. The redevelopment began in 2022 when it restarted light rare earth element (LREE) processing. Recently, it has also restarted heavy REE (HREE) processing. According to Wikipedia, some later processing into magnets is still done in China, but that is what the new U.S. magnet production intends to replace. The Mountain Pass Mine is the world’s largest known rare earth ore accumulation, and in 2020 it supplied 15.8% of the world's rare-earth production.

     According to 24/7 Wall St:

“Pentagon money funds upgrades at Mountain Pass in California and a separate magnet plant called 10X. Commissioning at 10X is expected around 2028. The Department of War remains MP's partner on the project.”

     The magnets for GM are from the already operating Fort Worth plant, which does not have government funding. MP Materials and GM made their agreement for REE magnet offtake in December 2021. The facility has been producing neodymium-iron-boron magnets for GM since December 2025. First delivery to GM of these magnets is expected very soon in this quarter, although reports on timing have conflicted with delivery possibly having begun in September.

“Co-founder and CEO James Litinsky said "no single entity" elsewhere handles the entire supply chain under one roof. MP is America's only fully integrated rare earth producer, from mining and processing through metallization and magnet manufacturing. Its customers include Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and U.S. aerospace and defense contractors.”

     The company’s stock rose quickly after the July 2025 announcement but gave back half of those gains over the past year or so. It has a current market value of about $8.37 billion.

 

SUMMARY

References:

 

The Pentagon bet $400 million that one US company could break China’s rare earth monopoly. MP Materials is about to deliver GM’s first rare earth magnets not made in China. AJ Tiarsmith. 24/7 Wall St. October 5, 2026. The Pentagon bet $400 million that one US company could break China’s rare earth monopoly. MP Materials is about to deliver GM’s first rare earth magnets not made in China

Mountian Pass Rare Earth Mine. Wikipedia. Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine - Wikipedia

Dry Falls, A Basalt Cliff That Rimmed Glacial Lake Missoula, in Eastern Washington State: A Rare Case Where Catastrophism is the Explanation

      The recent glacial collapse flood in Nepal was a reminder that catastrophism, though quite rare, does happen in geology, whether influenced by anthropogenic actions or not. Those waters and debris were estimated to have flowed at about 104 miles per hour, extraordinarily fast and destructive. In contrast, the Dry Falls basalt cliff rim of Lake Missoula, a glacial lake in Eastern Washington, is thought to have been cut by waters moving at 65 miles per hour. Both events are examples of catastrophism in geology, which does happen, although such events are quite rare; of course, gradualism, or gradual change, is by far the main mechanism in geology. The reality is that while some processes, like floods, storms, and surface-affecting earthquakes in geology, happen faster than others, the vast majority are slow and gradual, including most tectonism, sedimentation, and erosion.

     Dry Falls is thought to have been created by catastrophic flooding caused by glacial melt about 20,000 years ago at the end of the last glaciation. Wikipedia describes Dry Falls as:

“…a 3.5-mile-long (5.6 km) scalloped precipice with four major alcoves, in central Washington scablands. This cataract complex is on the opposite side of the Upper Grand Coulee from the Columbia River, and at the head of the Lower Grand Coulee, northern end of Lenore Canyon. According to the current geological model, catastrophic flooding channeled water at 65 miles per hour (105 kph) through the Upper Grand Coulee and over this 400-foot (120 m) rock face at the end of the last glaciation. It is estimated that the falls were five times the width of Niagara Falls,: 116  with ten times the flow of all the current rivers in the world combined.”

     In the case of Dry Falls, there is thought to have been a series of repeating catastrophic events, as the Lake repeatedly filled due to ice damming followed by rising waters floating the ice over the dam:

“It is generally accepted that this process of ice-damming of the Clark Fork, refilling of Lake Missoula and subsequent cataclysmic flooding happened dozens of times over the years of the last Ice Age.”

     The massive flow rates of the falls after these events put land affected under hundreds of feet of water in a short time. There is evidence of multiple plunge pools, signifying individual catastrophic ice dam breaches. Once the ice sheet fully melted and the rivers returned to their normal flow, the falls area was left dry and has been ever since.

     As noted below, the glacial lake ice dam collapse explanation for Dry Falls was first proposed in 1923 by geologist J. Harlen Bretz but not widely accepted until 1965.

 

  

    

 

References:

 

Dry Falls, the Missoula flood cataract, in bare-earth lidar [OC]. r/geology. u/Northing_ Labs. Reddit. October 2, 2026. Dry Falls, the Missoula flood cataract, in bare-earth lidar [OC] : r/geology

Dry Falls. Wikipedia. Dry Falls - Wikipedia

Population Growth, Ecological Overshoot of Carrying Capacity, and Unsustainable Economic Growth Threaten Humanity, Say Pessimistic Malthusian/Ehrlichan Scientists

  

     One of the authors of a paper published last March in Environmental Research Letters that informs this post was the late Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich published his famous book, The Population Bomb, in 1968, 58 years before this study. Ehrlich’s predictions were also famously or infamously proven to be very far off the mark, as humanity has thrived since then due in no small part to the Green Revolution and other technological advancements. Population has more than doubled since those failed predictions were made. Ehrlich also lost badly in a famous bet against economist Julian Simon about resource depletion. Apparently, however, Ehrlich was still sounding the alarms about population growth and resource depletion up to his death.

     There are several different population growth models considered to be plausible, and they vary considerably in peak population magnitude and time period. The study mentioned above seems to give a very high-end estimate, about 12 billion people by 2070.  Several other models predict much lower population by then, usually 9 or 10 billion, and some think population could peak nearer to 2050. The paper does give the variation in estimates, including the UN’s medium prediction of population peaking in the 2070s at about 10.2 billion people. Other plausible predictions given include one where population peaks in the 2060s at about 9.5 billion people, then begins to drop.

“Earth cannot keep up with the way in which we are using resources,” Flinders University’s Corey Bradshaw, lead author of the study, said in a press statement. “It cannot support even today’s demand without major changes, with our findings showing that we are pushing the planet harder than it can possibly cope.”

     Darren Orf of Popular Mechanics takes this to mean:

“So, yeah. We’re screwed.”

     He cites a paper published in Sustainable Development which suggests that human population should be gently lessened to 4 billion by 2200 in order to ensure resource availability. That is possible, but we do not know what technological advancements will occur before then that could render such a prediction less meaningful. The authors noted:

“Embracing a smaller population may seem discouraging or strange, as we have lived in an era of rapid global population increase,” the authors write. “But the global population quadrupled over the past century, and that is a much more disruptive change than if the population were to shrink by half over the next 170 years.”

     The authors of the Environment Research Letters paper noted:

“Today’s economies predicated on uninterrupted growth apparently do not recognize the regenerative constraints of sustained population expansion, because fossil fuels artificially make up the differences,” the authors wrote. “Nor do economies anticipate the looming reductions in regenerative capacity as climate disruptions intensify.”

     It should be pointed out that those constraints and reductions they mention are predictions as well and may not materialize at all.

     Orf dooms on about “limitarianism,” or putting limits on the amount of resources that can be used. He suggests fertilizer prices will rise, and food systems will be stressed. I would simply point out that food systems have not been stressed very much since the time when Ehrlich made his prediction, despite the population more than doubling.

     Below, the Environmental Research Letters paper’s abstract notes:

“A Ricker logistic model fitted to the negative phase predicts that the global population could reach 11.7–12.4 billion people between 2067 and 2076. The same model fitted to the facilitation phase predicts a maximum population of 2.5 billion people that Earth might be able to maintain.”

     Thus, they choose a model that predicts much higher population growth than other predictions, and apparently the model also predicts a maximum of 2.5 billion to stay within “carrying capacity.” They see anything consuming resources needed for 2.5 billion people as overconsumption. The notion of carrying capacity is itself a kind of prediction since it changes according to technology and economics. As Julian Simon proved, resource availability changes with economic conditions and technological advancement. Thus, the finiteness of resources changes as well. While renewable energy has yet to begin “replacing” fossil fuels, it is getting close to limiting the growth of fossil fuels. It will, at some point, actually begin to replace fossil fuels in terms of replacing generation, but due to its limitations, it is also limited in its ability to fully replace fossil fuels.

     They also acknowledge in the abstract:

“The ecological concept of human carrying capacity is necessarily complicated because human beings are the ‘ultimate ecosystem engineers’ who moderate the environment for their benefit. For at least the last few hundred years, human ingenuity, access to massive stocks of fossil fuels, and technological development have driven facilitation whereby increasing human abundance has promoted higher population growth rates.”

     Here, I notice that they used the same phrase Simon used, “human ingenuity,” to describe ecosystem mitigation. They also acknowledge the well-known decoupling of economic growth from population growth, where growth slowed as population increased. They pinpoint this as beginning in 1962. They also declare that a “biocapacity deficit” began in 1970, eight years later. I am not sure where or how they got that figure.

     The lead author also noted:

"Humanity's current path will push societies into deeper crises unless we make major changes," he says.

"The planet's life support systems are already under strain and without rapid shifts in how we use energy, land, and food, billions of people will face increasing instability. Our study shows these limits are not theoretical but unfolding right now."

     Count me as very skeptical. The mere association of Ehrlich with the paper should ring catastrophist alarms. The use of the highest population estimates, the vagueness of defining human carrying capacity, and the lack of attention to that “human ingenuity” that makes resources more available, namely technological advancement, are what make me skeptical. I also wonder how much of this, and catastrophic predictions like it, intentional or not, ends up serving more as propaganda for certain biased views rather than as plausible science.

 

References:

 

Scientists say Earth needs to shrink by billions of people by 2200. But I think we’re already screwed. Darren Orf. Popular Mechanics. September 29, 2026. Scientists say Earth needs to shrink by billions of people by 2200. But I think we’re already screwed.

Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity. Corey J A Bradshaw, Melinda A Judge, Daniel T Blumstein, Paul R Ehrlich, Aisha N Z Dasgupta, Mathis Wackernagel, Lewis J Z Weeda and Peter N Le Souëf. Published 27 March 2026. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 21, Number 6. Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity - IOPscience

Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200. Mark Keegan, Anastasia Pseiridis, Philip Cafaro, Jane O'Sullivan, William Rees, Estelle Monique Sidze, Lawrence Whitmore, Enrique J. Derlindati, Mohammad Mainul Islam, Khaoula Houssini, and S. Irudaya Rajan. Sustainable Development. July 26, 2026. Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200 - Keegan - Sustainable Development - Wiley Online Library

Humanity has already exceeded Earth’s limits, study warns: Today’s population of 8.3 billion is far above what could be sustained in the long term without exhausting ecosystems, worsening climate change, and threatening food and water security. Finders University. Science Daily. May 27, 2026. Humanity has already exceeded Earth’s limits, study warns | ScienceDaily

Simultaneously Optimizing Yaw, Blade Pitch, and Tip Speed Ratio of Wind Turbines Yields 1.77% More Power Production Per Turbine in Lab Test

     A new paper published in PNAS Nexus details wind turbine modeling and pressurized wind tunnel experiments showing that simultaneously optimizing yaw, blade pitch, and tip speed ratio of wind turbines yields a 1.77% increase in power production, worth over $11,000 per turbine per year. For the 90 turbine wind farm in Wisconsin that was modeled, this would be a value of over $1 million per year.

     The researchers, from Queen’s University, MIT, Princeton University, and Penn State University, developed a unified wind turbine (UWT) model by integrating a unified momentum model and a blade element model.

     The results exemplify the potential incremental improvements in renewable energy production as well as fossil fuel production that continue to occur.  

     Below is a summary of the paper, its results, and the paper's abstract:

     The researchers believe they have overcome the limitations of lab testing of miniaturized wind turbines in wind tunnels with their new approach.

     According to The Brighterside of News:

“The High Reynolds number Test Facility at Princeton takes a different approach. Instead of relying primarily on faster airflow, it packs far more air into the tunnel.”

“Higher density increases the inertial effects acting on the rotor without requiring enormous wind speeds. The new experiments operated at a rotor Reynolds number of 4 million, nearly 200 times higher than conditions available in many conventional scaled experiments.”

“By pressurizing the chamber, we’re testing a turbine that is, all else being equal, 15 to 20 meters in diameter,” first author John Kurelek said.

     A turbine’s yaw angle is a measure of how far its rotor points away from the incoming wind. A perfectly aligned turbine has zero yaw error. Some misalignment is inevitable since wind frequently and unpredictably shifts direction. Blade tip ratio is a measure of the speed of a blade tip compared with the speed of the incoming wind. The researchers tested many combinations of yaw angle and tip speed ratio.

“The big output of the experiments was clearly showing that new power maximums can be achieved when the turbine becomes misaligned with the wind through only changes to the tip speed,” Kurelek said.

“When compared with the high-pressure experiments, the model reproduced changes in power and thrust across yaw angles and correctly predicted the power-maximizing tip speed ratio within experimental uncertainty across most of the tested range.”

     One success of the study is validating the experimental lab testing model, which can be used in subsequent wind turbine optimization experiments as well as in designing new turbine designs.

“The immediate impact of this study is that we’ve now both improved and validated models that go into wind turbine control protocols for existing farms,” MIT researcher Michael Howland said. The larger opportunity, he added, is using the same experimental framework to test new turbine designs and control strategies much faster than field experiments allow.

     Below, the Brighterside of News article lists some other recent linked studies of turbine control, wake-steering, and aerodynamic turbine modeling:

Wind-tunnel analysis of wake-steering control strategies on a multi-column model wind farm: Experiments on a 3×3 model wind farm found maximum measured power gains of about 5.3% under selected wake-steering configurations. (Wind Energy Science, 2026)

A multi-fidelity model intercomparison for wake steering of a large turbine in a conventionally neutral atmospheric boundary layer: This study compares aerodynamic models of varying complexity against large-eddy simulations, highlighting substantial differences in quantitative wake-steering predictions. (Wind Energy Science, 2026)

Reinforcement learning increases wind farm power production by enabling closed-loop collaborative control: Researchers demonstrate a dynamic control approach in which turbines cooperate rather than independently maximizing their own power. (Communications Engineering, 2026)

Wind farm active wake control via concurrent yaw and tip-speed ratio optimization: Modeling shows that simultaneously controlling yaw and tip speed ratio can outperform either strategy alone and increase annual energy production. (Applied Energy, 2025)

Unified momentum model for rotor aerodynamics across operating regimes: This paper introduced the first-principles momentum framework that underpins the Unified Wind Turbine model tested experimentally in the new study. (Nature Communications, 2024)

 

 

 

References:

 

Scientists find a simple control change that could significantly boost wind turbine output. Joshua Shavit. The Brighter Side of News. September 29, 2026. Scientists find a simple control change that could significantly boost wind turbine output

Full dynamic similarity experiments and predictive modeling of wind turbine aerodynamics across control strategies. John W Kurelek , Ilan M L Upfal , Supun Pieris , Kirby S Heck , Alexander Piqué , Marcus Hultmark , and Michael F Howland. PNAS Nexus, Volume 5, Issue 10, October 2026, pgag 303. Full dynamic similarity experiments and predictive modeling of wind turbine aerodynamics across control strategies | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic

Pure Water Oceanside Builds Indirect Potable Water Reuse Plant in San Diego: It Reduces Potable Water Imports into the City of Oceanside, California and Helps Recharge the Aquifer

     Phase One of Pure Water Oceanside’s indirect potable water reuse plant is up and running, reducing the share of water imported into the city from 89% to 67%. Phase Two will further reduce imports to 44%. The plant, backed by a $71 million investment, treats local wastewater and transforms it into clean drinking water.

     According to San Diego Red:

“Known as Pure Water Oceanside, the program is the first of its kind in the county. It utilizes treated water from the San Luis Rey Water Recovery Facility, subjecting it to ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced ultraviolet oxidation. The purified water is then injected into the Mission Basin aquifer, before being extracted for final treatment and distribution as clean drinking water. This process is classified as indirect potable reuse.”

     The facility currently treats 4.5 million gallons per day with plans to increase that to 6 million gallons per day.

“Oceanside also manages the “La Salina” plant, built in 1949 and recognized as the city’s oldest wastewater treatment facility, which provides secondary treatment prior to ocean discharge. Meanwhile, the San Luis Rey facility continues to produce recycled water for urban landscaping, parks, and golf courses, and it’s the primary source for the Pure Water initiative.”

     Importing drinking water is costly and energy intensive. The local Mission Basin Aquifer has faced depletion, and recharging it with treated wastewater allows for further natural treatment in the aquifer. Water drawn from the aquifer is treated as well to meet drinking water standards.

     The company’s website explains the difference between recycled or reclaimed water and purified water. Recycled/reclaimed water undergoes some treatment and is reused for certain non-potable purposes like agriculture, industrial use, and landscaping. Purified water undergoes several additional purification steps. Oceanside makes this ultra-purified water.

 

 

  

References:

 

San Diego County’s first potable reuse plant: Pure Water Oceanside. Eric Sanchez. San Diego Red. October 3, 2026. San Diego County’s first potable reuse plant: Pure Water Oceanside

Pure Water Oceanside. Website. Pure Water Oceanside | Oceanside, CA

The Difference Between Recycled/Reclaimed Water and Purified Water. Oceanside. The Difference Between Recycled/Reclaimed Water and Purified Water | Oceanside, CA

Mangrove Forests Mitigate Nitrogen Pollution by Trapping Sediment that Contains Anaerobic Microbes That Break It Down in Water: The Potential for Nitrogen Removal Credit Markets

     A recent study published in the journal Earth’s Future estimates that mangrove forests provide $8.7 billion per year in benefits through mitigating coastal nitrogen pollution. That adds to their ability to sequester carbon, to curb coastal erosion, and to protect against storm surges, resulting in an impressive ecosystem services portfolio for the species.

     According to Live Science:

“Mangroves are salt-tolerant plants that grow between the high-tide and low-tide marks in tropical and subtropical coastal regions. Their tall, tangled roots trap sediments rich in microbes that break down nitrogen in the water into nitrogen gas (N2) and nitrous oxide (N2O), effectively removing this nutrient from the ecosystem.”

     The scientists admit that they are just beginning to understand how the microbes enable denitrification.

"We're still really in the infancy of trying to understand what is driving this nitrogen removal," Benoit Thibodeau, an assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in a joint interview with his co-author Ziyan Wang, a doctoral student in environmental science at the same university. "You're taking reactive nitrogen … and you're removing it to the atmosphere as N2, which is nonreactive and has a residence time of thousands of years."

     Nitrogen pollution from fertilizer and manure runoff, and sewage, collects in coastal areas where it depletes the oxygen in the water, a process known as eutrophication, and feeds algal blooms.

     The researchers estimated global nitrogen-removal rates in mangrove forests, noting different rates of nitrogen removal in different forests. They then estimated the amount of nitrogen that mangrove forests could soak up if temperature, salinity, and nitrogen levels were optimal. They utilized previous studies along with their own measurements to arrive at the estimates.

“Microbes in mangrove forests remove nitrogen via two main pathways: denitrification and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox). Denitrification transforms nitrate in the water into nitrogen gas and nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas. Anammox, on the other hand, converts nitrite and ammonium into nitrogen gas, which makes up 78% of the atmosphere and is not a greenhouse gas. These pathways work best with relatively high nitrogen concentrations, but there is a threshold past which removal slows, according to the study.”

“These pathways also occur in seagrass meadows and other coastal environments, but mangrove forests are especially good at removing nitrogen because their sediments are oxygen-poor, which promotes the right kind of microbial activity, Wang said.

     The researchers utilized a market valuation akin to carbon credits for the nitrogen-removal benefits to estimate the value of mangrove forests. They are known as blue nitrogen credits.

“Based on what municipalities in countries like Australia and the U.S. pay to get rid of nitrogen in their water systems, Thibodeau and Wang settled on a price of just over $10,000 for every metric ton of nitrogen removed anywhere in the world.”

     The market valuing nitrogen removal is much less mature than carbon markets, which generally have agreed-upon regional prices.

“At the current rate of nitrogen removal, mangroves' cleanup service is worth $8.7 billion per year globally. If removal rose to 5.5 million tons per year, it would be worth around $57 billion annually, according to the study.”

     Below are some of the variables used in estimating nitrogen removal potential in mangrove forests.

     Below, they note that their estimates suggest that nitrogen removal offers much better overall environmental or ecosystem benefits than carbon sequestration, with an economic value potentially 12 times higher.

“The researchers also calculated the economic value of carbon sequestration in mangrove forests and found it was 12 times smaller than that of nitrogen removal. Notably, carbon sequestration is also less stable than nitrogen removal is, because mangroves store carbon in sediments that can be disturbed. On the flip side, mangrove forests convert nitrogen in the water mostly into nitrogen gas, which stays in the atmosphere, Thibodeau said. Nevertheless, mangrove forests "have a very high rate of storage of carbon compared to other ecosystems," he added.

“Mangroves are mostly threatened by sea-level rise and land clearance for infrastructure, Thibodeau said. The results highlight that "we're not only losing space or nature, but we're also losing a very important financial value."

     The researchers note that conventional approaches to wastewater treatment make nitrogen pollution mitigation prohibitively expensive. They also say that water infrastructure funding in the U.S. is inadequate by about $81 billion.

     The authors explain denitrification via anaerobic reduction as the main reaction below, as well as the secondary reaction that converts ammonium and nitrite to nitrogen gas.

“Denitrification, the anaerobic reduction of NO3− to nitrous oxide (N2O) and N2 is generally the primary process responsible for N removal in mangroves (e.g., Reis et al., 2017). This process is thought to be fueled by the amount of available NO3− and organic carbon (OC) (Kraft et al., 2014; Rivera-Monroy & Twilley, 1996). Anammox can also contribute to N removal by converting NH4+ and nitrite (NO2−) directly into N2, partly decoupled from the availability of OC (Fernandes et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2005). However, despite the increasing recognition of mangroves for their capacity to buffer coastal waters from N pollution (Adame et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2008), a robust global assessment is lacking.”

     They note that accurate estimation of the global nitrogen removal potential of different mangrove forests is essential to the valuation of nitrogen removal credits in an offset market.

     The graph below shows that carbon sequestration, nitrogen removal, and potential future nitrogen removal are all better where mangrove forests occur in estuarine and deltaic environments compared to open-coast and lagoon environments.

 

References:

 

Mangroves clean up $8.7 billion of nitrogen pollution every year, study finds. Sascha Pare. Live Science. May 8, 2026. Mangroves clean up $8.7 billion of nitrogen pollution every year, study finds | Live Science

Blue Nitrogen: Global Rates and Economic Importance. Ziyan Wang and Benoit Thibodeau. Earth’s Future. Volume 14, Issue 5. May 2026. Blue Nitrogen: Global Rates and Economic Importance - Wang - 2026 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

 

Robert Bryce: Trump’s Media Ban Clearly Violates First Amendment Press Freedom

     

     Robert Bryce is known for telling it like it is. This case is no different, and I agree completely. Constitutional press freedom simply requires Trump to tolerate negative news stories. He may not like it, but that is the way it is. No judge or court should allow him to ban press coverage.

     In this case, Bryce simply states the wording James Madison used when he introduced the amendment:

“The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”

     As we know, Trump has done other things that may be illegal or unconstitutional, and he often treads on that line between legal and illegal every opportunity he gets. If he doesn’t like it here, he should leave, because that is the way it is. He does not get to make up the rules. That is not how our government works as much as he would like it to be.

     Fortunately, the ban was struck down by a judge, and one that Trump appointed, at that.  

     Bryce continued, regarding the quote:

“That sentence, written by a man who’s often called the “Father of the Constitution,” provides essential context for President Trump’s move last week to bar CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. And to add more foolishness to an already indefensible move, on Friday, while in the Oval Office, Trump went even further, saying, “It’s sick. I mean there’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories.”

“Excuse my language, but WTF?”

     I think it is likely that Trump simply doesn’t understand how he is limited by the Constitution, but ignorance is no excuse. If he did, he would not have enacted the ban or uttered the sentence about negative stories.

     Below, he summarizes the potential implications of Trump adding this blunder to his sinking approval ratings. He notes Trump is also damaging the GOP. I would add that the lack of or lackluster pushback by the GOP against Trump’s blunders damages them just as badly. I won’t even consider voting for a Republican until he is long gone.

“Trump’s ban of the media outlets and his mocking of the First Amendment are beyond the pale. They are a strategic blunder, an own goal. And Trump is scoring that own goal at the very moment his approval ratings are the lowest of his political career. A poll released on Monday showed his approval rating is just 32%. That’s the lowest approval rating for a sitting president in the last nine midterms. Further, Trump’s doing more damage to the Republican Party’s brand, and he’s doing it just six weeks before the pivotal midterm elections.”

     Trump later tried to invoke National Security to support the ban, something that has worked with him in the past to bypass Congress and the courts. It won't work this time.

 

 

  

References:

 

Trump v. Madison (And Streisand). Robert Bryce. Substack. September 22, 2026. Trump v. Madison (And Streisand) - Robert Bryce

An Iron Complex Reaction Powered by Light Can Reduce Nitrate to Ammonia, Mitigating Groundwater Pollution: Powered by Heat, It Yields Nitric Oxide: Manipulation of Hydrogen Bonds is the Key

     Researchers at the University of Michigan published a paper in the journal Nature Chemistry that shows how they were able to develop an iron complex that can break down leftover groundwater nitrate from fertilizer, which is typically very stable in the environment. Nitrates are notoriously difficult to chemically reduce and remove from the environment. They are also responsible for harmful algal blooms, promoting cyanobacteria growth, inducing eutrophication, and death of marine life. The new method can reduce nitrate into components that can be recycled for fertilizer.

     According to Phys.org, lead author and chemist Nathaniel Szymczak noted:

"Now we tend to overfertilize crops, and a huge majority of the fertilizer we apply actually leaches away with runoff into streams, groundwater, lakes and oceans," Szymczak said. "Human impacts have basically caused an imbalance, and it's impossible for biological systems to compensate for as much nitrate as we're dumping into them."

     They first studied nitrogen transport and chemical interactions in the environment. They found that hydrogen bonds were the key to binding nitrates as well as to enhancing the chemical reduction of them.

“They found that nitrate transporter proteins—proteins that help plants use nitrates—bind to nitrates using hydrogen bonds. These hydrogen bonds are found in a halo of surrounding molecules called the "secondary sphere."

"When we look at this problem of how we actually tackle nitrate reduction, we look to the enzymes, we look to biology, and what we've found is nature has provided cues about how to bind and reduce nitrate," he said. "We found that just by having well-positioned hydrogen bonds, you can actually change the bonding structure in nitrate and force a subsequent reduction step."

     They began with an iron complex surrounded by a secondary sphere of hydrogen bonds. They were then able to turn hydrogen bonds on, essentially targeting the binding sites on nitrates, in order to prime, or ready them for the next chemical reaction in the reduction process.   

     The researchers note that there are two types of reduction sequences for nitrates: stoichiometric reduction and catalytic reduction.

“Nature’s solution to achieve binding/activation of nitrate is to use networks of hydrogen-bonding (H-bonding) interactions, amino acid residues that are critical to the function of nitrate transport proteins and nitrate reductases.”

     The researchers compared the use of heat and light to power the chemical reaction and got two different chemical results.

“When the researchers used heat to drive the chemical reaction, the iron complex was able to grab oxygen atoms from nitrate, reducing it to nitric oxide. When the researchers used light, the iron complex was able to remove oxygen atoms from nitrate altogether, converting it to ammonia.”

     The ammonia can be reused as fertilizer, and the nitric oxide has medical and industrial uses. The experiments should be considered to be an early step in the development of chemical remediation of nitrates in water, which is needed where fertilizer use is heavy. It should be combined with more efficient, better targeting, timing, and overall optimization of fertilizer applications. Devices would need to be built that could facilitate and control the reduction step. The method could one day be used at facilities like wastewater treatment plants.

"The timeframe for development of solutions to big picture problems has a large time horizon, and they require fundamental studies to develop principles and invent new ways to do molecular transformations that are societally important," Szymczak said. "We are giving people a roadmap of how to achieve the difficult reduction step that we hope could be translated to engineered systems that might be used down the road."

    

References:

 

Iron complex breaks down stubborn pollutant using light-powered reaction. University of Michigan. edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan. Phys.org. September 22, 2026. Iron complex breaks down stubborn pollutant using light-powered reaction

Secondary-sphere hydrogen bonding promotes catalytic nitrate reduction at iron. Writhabrata Sarkar, Andrew R. LaDuca, Riley W. Kazukiewicz & Nathaniel K. Szymczak. Nature Chemistry (2026). Secondary-sphere hydrogen bonding promotes catalytic nitrate reduction at iron | Nature Chemistry