France is reportedly prepared to extend its nuclear deterrent to protect Europe, as concerns grow over U.S. commitment to NATO under the Trump administration. Fighter jets carrying nuclear weapons could be stationed in Germany, marking a major shift in European defense policy.
Key Details:
French nuclear-capable fighter jets could be deployed to Germany as the U.S. considers reducing its military presence in Europe.
German Chancellor-elect Friedrich Merz has urged Britain and France to extend nuclear protection to Europe as he seeks to reduce dependence on the U.S.
Emmanuel Macron discussed his European security strategy with Donald Trump at the White House, emphasizing that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender.
Diving Deeper:
France is poised to extend its nuclear deterrent to help protect Europe, with potential plans to station nuclear-capable fighter jets in Germany. The move comes amid growing uncertainty over U.S. military commitments on the continent.
Friedrich Merz, who won Germany’s recent elections and is expected to become chancellor, has been vocal about securing European “independence” from American security guarantees. Merz has called on France and Britain to expand their nuclear umbrella to Germany, arguing that Europe can no longer rely on Washington’s protection.
A French official told The Telegraph that deploying nuclear jets in Germany would send a strong message to Russia, while Berlin-based diplomats suggested that such a move could pressure British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to take similar action. “Posting a few French nuclear jet fighters in Germany should not be difficult and would send a strong message,” the official said.
Macron, a longtime advocate for European strategic autonomy, discussed the nuclear defense initiative with Merz on Sunday night before traveling to Washington. At the White House, he presented his vision for Europe’s security and the defense of Ukraine to President Trump. During a joint press conference, Trump indicated that the U.S. would not offer security guarantees to Ukraine once a peace agreement was signed.
Macron, standing beside Trump, emphasized that any peace settlement “must not be a surrender of Ukraine” and called on European nations to take greater responsibility for the continent’s security.
For decades, the U.S. has maintained Europe’s security with a nuclear arsenal of roughly 100 missiles, many of which are based in Germany. However, France’s nuclear program operates independently from NATO, while Britain’s serves as a core component of the alliance’s defense strategy. Merz has urged both nations to consider expanding their nuclear security umbrella to include Germany.
On Monday, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson added to the debate, arguing that Ukraine itself should have nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future Russian aggression. Speaking to The Telegraph during a visit to Kyiv, Johnson said there was a “moral case” for Ukraine to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
Although talks on a formal European nuclear deterrent have yet to begin, Germany’s diplomatic circles acknowledge the growing pressure on Berlin to consider France’s offer. Macron has long pushed for a European dialogue on the role of France’s nuclear weapons in defending the continent. A Berlin diplomat suggested that Macron’s push would also challenge Starmer to clarify Britain’s role in European defense.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.
The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is about 64%.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.
In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.
That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”
In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.
McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.
The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.
The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.
If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.
Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.
McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries. This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.
When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.
The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.
For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at theCO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
President Donald Trump on Sunday said every American with the exception of the wealthy will receive $2,000 from the revenue the U.S. has collected from tariffs.
“A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high-income people!) will be paid to revenue,” Trump posted on Truth Social. He did not say when or how the tariff revenue would be distributed.
“We are now the richest, most respected country in the world with almost no inflation and a record stock market price. 401Ks are highest ever,” Trump wrote. “We are taking in trillions of dollars and will soon begin paying down our enormous debt, $37 trillion. Record investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place.”
Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families and pay down the national debt. Economists, businesses and some public companies have warned that tariffs will raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.
Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs have been challenged in federal courts as unconstitutional by some business groups and Blue states, who argue that only Congress has the authority to enact tariffs. The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a consolidated case challenging the tariffs.
Even some of the court’s conservative justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s authority to issue sweeping tariffs. Trump addressed that skepticism in his social media post.
“So let’s get this straight? The president of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress) to stop ALL TRADE with a foreign country (which is far more onerous than a tariff) and LICENSE a foreign country, but it is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for the purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY,” he wrote. “That is not what our great founders had in mind. The whole thing is ridiculous! Other countries can tariff us, but we can’t tariff them? It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???”
The Center Square’s Brett Rowland contributed to this report.
Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square.
