Doubts

WASHINGTON — Of all the investigations underway by the FBI, the case of Charlie Kirk’s killing is one that President Trump’s allies expect the bureau to get right. Yet its director, Kash Patel, has struggled out of the gate.

A series of missteps

He posted misleading updates of the manhunt for a suspect on social media, blaming “the heat of the moment” in testimony before a Senate panel on Tuesday. He failed to coordinate his messaging internally with Justice Department leadership. Instead of returning to headquarters, Patel dined at an exclusive restaurant in New York as the search unfolded. And after a suspect was apprehended, Patel joined Fox News to share unprecedented details.

It was a series of missteps viewed in law enforcement circles as rookie errors, reflective of a director in over his head.

Trump has publicly stood by Patel in recent days. But leading voices in the MAGA movement have wondered aloud whether it is time for Patel to be removed, and top officials at the White House and Justice Department are reportedly questioning his future at the bureau. The president has also installed another loyalist in a top deputy position at FBI headquarters, raising questions over his plans.

Kash Patel discusses the hunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer at a news conference Friday in Orem, Utah, joined by Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason, left, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

The renewed spotlight on Patel comes amid suspicion in right-wing circles the director is suppressing the release of files from the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious sex offender, at Trump’s direction. And last week, former bureau officials filed a lawsuit against the administration accusing the White House of exerting extraordinary political influence over the FBI, issuing loyalty tests for agents to determine their support for Trump.

On Saturday, Trump told Fox News that he was “very proud of the FBI,” praising the agency for ultimately catching the suspected killer. “Kash — and everyone else — they have done a great job,” he added.

“In normal times, any run-of-the-mill president of either party would certainly have serious concerns with keeping Patel around,” said Douglas M. Charles, a professor and FBI historian at Penn State Greater Allegheny, characterizing Patel as historically unqualified for the role. “Of course, we are not living in normal political times.”

Patel’s job sustainability, Charles said, “rests not on whether he is competent, but exclusively on whether President Trump is satisfied with him.”

“Patel is not acting as an independent FBI director,” Charles added, “the standard we have historically had since 1973.”

Jeopardizing the Kirk case?

Justice Department officials reacted with alarm after Patel shared the content of text messages from the suspect in Kirk’s shooting, revelations that got out front of official court filings.

“Why are we reluctant to share the details of the investigation itself, and comment on the case?” Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney, said Tuesday, outlining state charges against the murder suspect. “Because I want to ensure a fair and impartial trial.”

“I can’t talk about details at all,” said Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, asked for insight into the case in a Fox News interview on Monday.

The episode drew harsh rebuke from Democrats on Capitol Hill this week, where Patel was scheduled for hearings with the House and Senate judiciary committees. “Could I have been more careful in my verbiage?” he mused, before facing a slew of questions from lawmakers.

But Patel fiercely defended himself, repeatedly citing his experience as a prosecutor in the national security division of the Justice Department, and later at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and at the Defense Department.

“I’m not going anywhere,” Patel told the Senate. “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh, said that precedent exists of public officials undermining the prosecution of high-profile cases, sometimes with devastating consequences. “The Patel remarks and actions may well prejudice the trial of Tyler Robinson,” he said, referencing Kirk’s murder suspect.

On Capitol Hill, Patel said his social posts and media appearances were in service of transparency with the American people. But the charges, trial, and evidence in the case are all public, said Norm Eisen, co-founder of the States United Democracy Center and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

“Patel’s appointment as FBI director raised red flags from the start, mainly because of his lack of relevant experience and his partisan background. What we’ve seen in recent days has only reinforced those concerns,” Eisen said.

“The Utah County attorney leading the prosecution knew better than to comment on Patel’s speculative claims, correctly pointing out that it was necessary to preserve an impartial jury,” he added. “Making political speeches about the case undermines the integrity of the process and jeopardizes the prosecution.”

Political litmus tests

In a heated exchange with Patel this week, Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, asked the director whether anyone from the bureau had been terminated or disciplined “in whole or in part” for being assigned to work on investigations of Trump in recent years. Trump was ultimately charged with federal crimes over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his handling of highly classified documents.

“Anyone that was terminated at the FBI was done so for failing to meet their standards, uphold their constitutional oath, and effectuate the mission,” Patel replied, adding: “No one at the FBI is terminated for case assignments alone.”

The line of questioning came amid reports and a lawsuit alleging Patel has taken direct instructions from the White House to fire individuals involved in the Trump investigations.

Three former senior FBI officials — Spencer L. Evans, Brian J. Driscoll Jr. and Steven J. Jensen — brought the lawsuit after being fired from their jobs in a “campaign of retribution,” according to the filing, a 68-page document that paints Patel as a vassal of Trump prioritizing his social media image over the work of the bureau.

“Patel not only acted unlawfully, but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” the lawsuit reads.

But it was questioning over the Epstein case that set off Patel’s patience.

At the end of their exchange, Schiff asked the director how he could possibly be in the dark over the circumstances of a prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close confidante serving 20 years in prison for aiding his abuse of hundreds of women and girls, to one of the most comfortable facilities in the federal penitentiary system. Patel erupted, calling Schiff a “buffoon” over his investigations of the president.

“Here’s the thing, Mr Patel,” Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, told Patel, ending a similarly heated exchange. “I think you’re not gonna be around long. I think this might be your last oversight hearing.”

“Because as much as you supplicate yourself to the will of Donald Trump and not the Constitution,” Booker added, “Donald Trump has shown us he is not loyal to people like you.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: L.A.’s online ‘hood’ culture turns real-world violence into viral content
The deep dive: Primm was once an affordable casino mecca for L.A. Now it has become a ghost town
The L.A. Times Special: White supremacists, death threats and ‘disgust’: Charlie Kirk’s killing roils Huntington Beach

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

A quarter of Latinos who supported President Donald Trump in the November election are not guaranteed to vote for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, according to a new national poll by Equis, a leading research and polling group.

Last week Equis, alongside progressive think tank Data for Progress, released a July memo that summarized key findings from a national poll of 1,614 registered voters, conducted between July 7 and July 17.

This time frame coincides with some notable turning points in politics: namely, when Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law, as well as his execution of mass deportations and controversial handling of the Epstein files.

Respondents were asked, “If the 2026 election for United States Congress were held today, for whom would you vote?” Only 27% replied that they would vote for a Republican candidate, marking a significant political party drop from the 45% who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

A quarter of those polled said they were not sure whom they would vote for (16%), would vote for someone else (5%), or would not vote at all (4%).

This shaky political alignment comes at a critical time for Republicans, who are banking on continual Latino support in 2026 — especially as Texas Republicans plan to flip five blue seats under a newly proposed congressional map.

The Equis study also found that 63% of Latinos disapproved of Trump’s job as president in July, a slight uptick from polling numbers in May, when 60% disapproved. This rating seems to reflect broader sentiments regarding the state of the U.S. economy: 64% of Latinos rated the economy as “somewhat or very poor,” while only 34% viewed it as “somewhat or very good.”

However, a disapproval of Trump does not mean Latinos have rushed to back the Democratic Party. Half the Latinos polled said Democrats care more about people like them, versus the 25% who said Republicans care more. Meanwhile, 17% said they believe that neither party cares.

Swing voters — including those who Equis calls “Biden defectors,” or voters who elected Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024 — are twice as likely to say that neither party cares about people like them (38%).

“Growing dissatisfaction with Trump offers Democrats an opportunity, but only if they are willing to capitalize on it,” the July memo states.

Overall, Trump’s national approval ratings are taking a nosedive, according to aggregate polling by the New York Times, which notes that Trump’s approach to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation has angered his base.

On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department for the files; lawmakers believe they could implicate Trump and other former top officials in the sex-trafficking investigation.

Trump’s anti-immigration policies have also likely shifted his popularity. Early July Gallup polling revealed that Americans have grown more positive toward immigration — 79% of Americans say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, which marks a 64% increase from last year and a 25-year record high.

At a time when it is trying to figure out a way to attract a larger share of moderate whites in presidential elections, the national Democratic Party is facing a tough decision.

Its leading candidate for party chairman is a black man who has been close to two of the party’s liberal icons, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Ron Brown, a 47-year-old Washington lawyer, once served on Kennedy’s Senate staff and last summer managed Jackson’s forces during the Democratic National Convention.

He is vying for the Democratic chairmanship with four other men: Michigan Democratic Chairman Richard Wiener and former U. S. Reps. Michael D. Barnes of Maryland, James R. Jones of Oklahoma and James V. Stanton of Ohio.

The 404 Democratic National Committee members will choose the new chairman in February. Although a political insider’s job, the post is always crucial to the direction of the party and the kind of presidential nominee it chooses at the end of the chairman’s four-year term.

Big Names

Brown’s four competitors have significant support, but it is Brown who is picking up the big names.

Two potential presidential candidates–New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley–have endorsed him, and a major Democratic moderate, former Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, is working hard on his behalf.

Brown also has strong support among organized labor and is popular with the large bloc of Democratic National Committee members from California.

“You’re going to see a consensus building for Ron in the next few weeks,” said a top Los Angeles Democrat who asked not to be identified. “You’re going to see governors coming out for him.”

Even Brown’s opponents cannot find anything bad to say about him and some acknowledge that he is the most qualified person seeking the job. He is a skilled negotiator and communicator and has worked within the party for years.

But some Democrats worry that his selection would send the wrong signal to moderates who have been deserting the party in recent presidential elections.

‘New Direction’

“We have been trying to move the party in a new direction for four years and that is not the direction of Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy,” said Al From, executive director of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats, many of them Southern senators and governors.

“Ron may be in the center of the political spectrum personally,” From said, “but the baggage he carries is that the two politicians he is most associated with are liberals. At some point this party has to recognize the fact that the liberal message is not winning presidential elections.”

Some Democrats also worry that Brown is a stalking horse for Jackson, who may run again for President in 1992. But Babbitt said in an interview that theory was off base.

“I know Ron Brown and I can tell you he is not a stalking horse for Jesse. I made this mistake four years ago when I opposed the selection of (Paul G. Kirk Jr.) for Democratic chair on the ground that he was a stalking horse for Ted Kennedy.

“That not only turned out to be false, (but) Paul Kirk has been an outstanding chairman for the last four years. He has greatly improved the party. Ron Brown will do the same thing.”

Jewish Supporters

Some Democrats also worry that because Brown advised Jackson, if only briefly, his selection to head the Democratic Party could alienate some Jews who are major financial supporters of the party and who have quarreled with Jackson in the past.

Edward Sanders, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, acknowledged that was a problem Brown had to surmount.

“But I am convinced Ron is his own man,” said Sanders, who arranged a meeting for Brown with some Jewish leaders recently in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Deputy City Atty. John Emerson, a former DNC member, said: “The next chairman of the Democratic Party has to be someone who can deal with Jesse Jackson. Ron is his own man and Jesse really respects him. It’s Ron’s asset not his liability.”

California has 23 votes on the Democratic National Committee and longtime party adviser Mickey Kantor believes “Ron can get 16 to 18 of those votes from what I have been able to determine.”

Brown said in an interview that he finds himself in a strange position: When Democratic leaders were worried about what Jackson would do at the national convention last summer, Brown agreed to help things go smoothly and ultimately won high praise.

“Now,” said Brown, “some people are worried that I am too close to Jesse. But anybody who knows me knows that isn’t so. I think my strongest point, in fact, is that I can be someone all sides can turn to.”

Heimo Schirgi’s first big job in soccer was as head of operations for UEFA, the largest and most influential of the global game’s six geographic confederations. Part of that job involved planning and managing the UEFA Champions League, the largest and most influential club soccer competition in the world.

So when Schirgi moved into his current job as FIFA’s chief operating officer for the World Cup, he brought with him the knowledge that the Champions League, for all its prestige and gravitas, also had one weakness: its field was limited to the 55 soccer-playing countries of Europe.

“You have all these club competitions on a confederation, continental level, right?” he said. “But you don’t have it on a global level. You never had clubs from South America competing against European clubs in a serious tournament with high stakes.

“I’m personally interested how the rest of the world’s clubs are going to fare. There’s only one way to find out.”

That one way is the FIFA Club World Cup, which kicked off in the U.S. 10 days ago. And while the tournament has many flaws, it has gone a long way toward answering Schirgi’s curiosity. Europe, it seems, isn’t so dominant after all.

Paris Saint-Germain, the reigning European champion, lost to Botafogo, currently eighth in Brazil’s Serie A. Iconic English club Chelsea was beaten handily by Flamengo, another Brazilian team. Mexico’s Monterrey played Inter Milan, the Champions League runner-up, to a draw. Real Madrid, Europe’s most decorated club, tied Al Hilal, which finished second in the Saudi Pro League.

And Spanish power Atlético Madrid, which made the round of 16 in the Champions League, didn’t even make it out of the group stage.

Those results may still prove to be little more than a stumble on the way to an all-European final four. Or not. And that uncertainty, Schirgi insists, is why the Club World Cup was created.

“Our sport is a sport where underdogs have a genuine chance, right?” he said. “It’s not just the money game. We know that club soccer is at a very high level.”

The real winners through the tournament’s first 34 games have been Latin American teams: Five of the six South American clubs entered Monday unbeaten, as did Mexico’s Monterrey. And if there’s been a big loser, it’s arguably been Major League Soccer, which has shown it’s not ready to play with the big boys.

Although the U.S. league made history when Inter Miami beat Porto 2-1 in a group-stage game, marking the first time an MLS club has beaten a European team in a competitive match, the league’s other two entries — LAFC and the Seattle Sounders — combined for just two goals and were shut out three times in their first five games, all losses.

But if the first Club World Cup has proven to be surprisingly entertaining, even compelling, there have been a few hiccups. Attendance was hurt by several early weekday kickoffs and high admission prices, which forced FIFA to essentially start giving away tickets. The average announced attendance of 36,043 through the first 34 games was matched by nearly as many empty seats.

Just one game has sold out; six others drew fewer than 14,100 fans.

Porto’s Rodrigo Mora tries to cool off after the FIFA Club World Cup group match on Monday.

(Adam Hunger / Associated Press)

The weather has also proven difficult with several players complaining about the heat and humidity. It was so bad in Cincinnati last Saturday, Borussia Dortmund’s substitutes watched the first half on TV in the dressing room. And it’s only going to get worse. Temperatures are expected to top 100 degrees on Tuesday in New Jersey, where Porto plays Al Ahly, and an excessive heat warning has been issued in Philadelphia, where Chelsea and Esperance de Tunis meet.

High 90s temperatures are also forecast Tuesday for Nashville, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C., where afternoon games are scheduled. That, however, will serve as a wake-up call for next summer’s World Cup, which will be played in similar conditions.

Perhaps the most complex problem FIFA faces in attempting to make the Club World Cup a significant quadrennial event, however, is the crowded fixture schedule. The World Cup will expand from 64 to 104 games next summer. Recent years have seen tournaments such as the Nations League added to the international calendar while club competitions including the Champions League, Europa League and Club World Cup expanded.

Others, such as the Leagues Cup, were created out of whole cloth.

As a result some players have played more than 70 matches for club and country in the last year. The fixture schedule has become so packed that the only place left to accommodate a monthlong tournament such as the Club World Cup was the traditional early summer break between one European season and the next.

FIFPRO, the global union representing soccer players, has cited scientific research in its call for a mandatory four-week break each year. FIFA, the Club World Cup organizer, responded by offering a $1 billion prize-money purse to get teams to play through that break.

“With the introduction of the new Champions League format and the new Club World Cup, which extends for over a month, the workload on teams and players has increased significantly,” said Giuseppe Marotta, chairman and chief executive officer of Inter Milan. “However these competitions also represent a huge opportunity in terms of visibility and revenue. For this reasons, they must be safeguarded.

“Adjustments should instead be made to the rest of the calendar to lighten the overall load.”

Marotta suggests shortening league schedules, which means diminishing domestic competitions while giving more power to the likes of FIFA and UEFA. That could be a slippery slope, one that would make the world’s game less local and more global.

But if the Club World Cup follows the trajectory of the Champions League, Schirgi thinks that’s a trade worth making.

“The beginnings of the Champions League, it was not always this huge, great event,” he said. “There is a lot of growth that needs to happen and a lot of education. We are super excited that we are part of history.”

⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.

WASHINGTON — President Trump faces the challenge of convincing Republican senators, global investors, voters and even Elon Musk that he won’t bury the federal government in debt with his multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package.

The response so far from financial markets has been skeptical as Trump seems unable to trim deficits as promised.

“All of this rhetoric about cutting trillions of dollars of spending has come to nothing — and the tax bill codifies that,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “There is a level of concern about the competence of Congress and this administration and that makes adding a whole bunch of money to the deficit riskier.”

The White House has viciously lashed out at anyone who has voiced concern about the debt snowballing under Trump, even though it did exactly that in his first term after his 2017 tax cuts.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt opened her briefing Thursday by saying she wanted “to debunk some false claims” about his tax cuts.

Leavitt said the “blatantly wrong claim that the ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill’ increases the deficit is based on the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers who use shoddy assumptions and have historically been terrible at forecasting across Democrat and Republican administrations alike.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) piled onto Congress’ number crunchers on Sunday, telling NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “The CBO sometimes gets projections correct, but they’re always off, every single time, when they project economic growth. They always underestimate the growth that will be brought about by tax cuts and reduction in regulations.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has said the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office are “always underestimates growth” spurred by tax cuts.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

But Trump himself has suggested that the lack of sufficient spending cuts to offset his tax reductions came out of the need to hold the Republican congressional coalition together.

“We have to get a lot of votes,” Trump said last week. “We can’t be cutting.”

That has left the administration betting on the hope that economic growth can do the trick, a belief that few outside of Trump’s orbit think is viable.

Most economists consider the non-partisan CBO to be the foundational standard for assessing policies, though it does not produce cost estimates for actions taken by the executive branch such as Trump’s unilateral tariffs.

Tech billionaire Musk, who was until recently part of Trump’s inner sanctum as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, told CBS News: “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”

Federal debt keeps rising

The tax and spending cuts that passed the House last month would add more than $5 trillion to the national debt in the coming decade if all of them are allowed to continue, according to the Committee for a Responsible Financial Budget, a fiscal watchdog group.

To make the bill’s price tag appear lower, various parts of the legislation are set to expire. This same tactic was used with Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and it set up this year’s dilemma, in which many of the tax cuts in that earlier package will sunset next year unless Congress renews them.

But the debt is a much bigger problem now than it was eight years ago. Investors are demanding the government pay a higher premium to keep borrowing as the total debt has crossed $36.1 trillion. The interest rate on a 10-year Treasury note is around 4.5%, up dramatically from the roughly 2.5% rate being charged when the 2017 tax cuts became law.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers argues that its policies will unleash so much rapid growth that the annual budget deficits will shrink in size relative to the overall economy, putting the U.S. government on a fiscally sustainable path.

The council argues the economy would expand over the next four years at an annual average of about 3.2%, instead of the Congressional Budget Office’s expected 1.9%, and as many as 7.4 million jobs would be created or saved.

Council chair Stephen Miran told reporters that when the growth being forecast by the White House is coupled with expected revenues from tariffs, the expected budget deficits will fall. The tax cuts will increase the supply of money for investment, the supply of workers and the supply of domestically produced goods — all of which, by Miran’s logic, would cause faster growth without creating new inflationary pressures.

“I do want to assure everyone that the deficit is a very significant concern for this administration,” Miran said.

White House budget director Russell Vought told reporters the idea that the bill is “in any way harmful to debt and deficits is fundamentally untrue.”

Economists doubt Trump’s plan can spark enough growth to reduce deficits

Most outside economists expect additional debt would keep interest rates higher and slow overall economic growth as the cost of borrowing for homes, cars, businesses and even college educations would increase.

“This just adds to the problem future policymakers are going to face,” said Brendan Duke, a former Biden administration aide now at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. Duke said that with the tax cuts in the bill set to expire in 2028, lawmakers would be “dealing with Social Security, Medicare and expiring tax cuts at the same time.”

Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, said the growth projections from Trump’s economic team are “a work of fiction.” He said the bill would lead some workers to choose to work fewer hours in order to qualify for Medicaid.

“I don’t know of any serious forecaster that has meaningfully raised their growth forecast because of this legislation,” said Harvard University professor Jason Furman, who was the Council of Economic Advisers chair under the Obama administration. “These are mostly not growth- and competitiveness-oriented tax cuts. And, in fact, the higher long-term interest rates will go the other way and hurt growth.”

The White House’s inability so far to calm deficit concerns is stirring up political blowback for Trump as the tax and spending cuts approved by the House now move to the Senate. Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky have both expressed concerns about the likely deficit increases, with Johnson saying there are enough senators to stall the bill until deficits are addressed.

“I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit,” Johnson said on CNN.

Trump banking on tariff revenues to help

The White House is also banking that tariff revenues will help cover the additional deficits, even though recent court rulings cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump declaring an economic emergency to impose sweeping taxes on imports.

When Trump announced his near-universal tariffs in April, he specifically said his policies would generate enough new revenues to start paying down the national debt. His comments dovetailed with remarks by aides, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, that yearly budget deficits could be more than halved.

“It’s our turn to prosper and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt, and it’ll all happen very quickly,” Trump said two months ago as he talked up his import taxes and encouraged lawmakers to pass the separate tax and spending cuts.

The Trump administration is correct that growth can help reduce deficit pressures, but it’s not enough on its own to accomplish the task, according to new research by economists Douglas Elmendorf, Glenn Hubbard and Zachary Liscow.

Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale University, said additional “growth doesn’t even get us close to where we need to be.”

The government would need $10 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years just to stabilize the debt, Tedeschi said. And even though the White House says the tax cuts would add to growth, most of the cost goes to preserve existing tax breaks, so that’s unlikely to boost the economy meaningfully.

“It’s treading water,” Tedeschi said.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Taipei, Taiwan – As Taiwan prepares to shut down its last nuclear reactor, soaring energy demand driven by the island’s semiconductor industry is rekindling a heated debate about nuclear power.

Taiwan’s electricity needs are expected to rise by 12-13 percent by 2030, largely driven by the boom in artificial intelligence (AI), according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Environmental group Greenpeace has estimated that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, will by itself consume as much electricity as roughly one-quarter of the island’s some 23 million people by the same date.

The self-ruled island’s soaring appetite for power complicates Taipei’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, which is heavily dependent on raising renewable energy production to about 60-70 percent of the total from about 12 percent at present.

Nuclear power advocates argue that the energy source is the most feasible way for Taiwan to reach its competing industrial and environmental goals.

On Tuesday, Taiwan’s legislature passed an amendment to allow nuclear power plants to apply for licences to extend operations beyond the existing 40-year limit.

The opposition Kuomintang and Taiwan People’s Party passed the bill over the objections of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which came to power in 2016 on a pledge to achieve a “nuclear-free homeland”.

The legal change will not halt Sunday’s planned closure of the last operating reactor – the No 2 reactor at the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant – though it casts doubt over the island’s longstanding opposition to nuclear power.

The government said after the vote that it had no immediate plans for any future nuclear power projects, though Premier Cho Jung-tai indicated earlier that the government would not oppose the restoration of decommissioned reactors if the amendment passed.

Cho said Taipei was “open” to nuclear power provided safety was ensured and the public reached a consensus on the issue.

Any move to restart the local nuclear industry would, at a minimum, take years.

Taiwan began its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s with the assistance of technology from the United States.

By 1990, state-owned power firm Taipower operated three plants with the capacity to generate more than one-third of the island’s electricity needs.

‘Renewable energy isn’t stable’

Angelica Oung, a member of the Clean Energy Transition Alliance who supports nuclear power, said Taiwan could generate about 10 percent of its energy requirements from nuclear plants when the DDP came to power nearly a decade ago.

“Energy emissions at the time were lower than now – isn’t that ridiculous?” Oung told Al Jazeera.

“At the time, it was reasonable to launch the anti-nuclear policy as the public was still recovering from the devastating Fukushima nuclear disaster … but now even Japan has now decided to return to nuclear,” Oung said, referring to Tokyo’s plans to generate 20 percent of its power from the energy source by 2040.

“That’s because renewables simply don’t work.”

“The supply of renewable energy isn’t stable … solar energy, for example, needs the use of batteries,” Oung added.

While the 2011 Fukushima disaster helped solidify opposition to nuclear power, Taiwan’s history of anti-nuclear activism stretches back decades earlier.

The DPP was founded just months after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster and included an anti-nuclear clause in its charter.

The following year, the Indigenous Tao people launched protests against Taipower’s policy of dumping nuclear waste on Orchid Island, helping cement the civil anti-nuclear movement.

Nuclear energy attracted further negative scrutiny in the 1990s, when it emerged that about 10,000 people had been exposed to low levels of radiation due to the use of radioactive scrap metals in building materials.

In 2000, Taipei halted construction of a planned fourth nuclear plant amid protests by environmental groups.

A 2021 referendum proposal to restart work on the mothballed project was defeated 52.84 percent to 47.16 percent.

Chia-wei Chao, research director of the Taiwan Climate Action Network, said nuclear power is not the answer to Taiwan’s energy needs.

“Developing nuclear energy in Taiwan often means cutting the budget for boosting renewables, as opposed to other countries,” Chao told Al Jazeera.

Chao said Taiwan’s nuclear plants were built without taking into account the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, and that establishing a local industry that meets modern standards would be costly and difficult.

“Extension of the current plants and reactors means having to upgrade the infrastructure to meet more updated safety standards and factoring in quake risks. This costs a lot, so nuclear energy doesn’t translate into cheaper electricity,” he said.

Lena Chang, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, said that reviving nuclear energy would not only be costly, but potentially dangerous, too.

“We, Greenpeace, firmly [oppose] restarting nuclear plants or expanding the use of nuclear because nuclear poses an unresolved safety, waste and environmental risk, particularly in Taiwan – a small island that can’t afford a nuclear and environmental disaster,” Chang told Al Jazeera.

Chang said the chip industry should have to contribute to the cost of switching to renewable energy sources.

“They should be responsible for meeting their own green energy demand, instead of leaving all the work to Taipower, as any of the money to build more energy plants and storage facilities ultimately comes from people’s tax money,” she said.

Chao agreed, saying chip giants such as TSMC should lead the push to go green.

“The chipmaking industry is here to stay … Sure, energy supply will be tight in the next three years, but it’s still enough,” he said.