Japan reacts to Trump's remarks about Hiroshima, Nagasaki atomic bombings
Japanese officials and atomic bomb survivors have reacted to US President Donald Trump's remarks comparing the US attack on Iranian nuclear sites to the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Trump hailed the weekend operation to strike Iranian nuclear facilities at a news conference on Wednesday in the Netherlands, where he was attending a summit of NATO leaders.
Stressing that "monumental damage" was done to Iran, Trump said: "That hit ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war."
He made similar remarks at a separate news conference later that day.
Trump said, "When you look at Hiroshima, if you look at Nagasaki, that ended a war, too." He added, "This ended a war in a different way."
Atomic-bomb survivors: 'Unacceptable' comments
In Hiroshima, the leader of a group representing atomic bomb survivors, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024, reacted angrily to Trump's remarks.
Mimaki Toshiyuki, co-chair of Nihon Hidankyo, said he could not help but wonder why the US president made such comments, and called them "unacceptable" for people like him who had lost so many of their loved ones and struggled to rebuild their devastated homeland.
Mimaki said he strongly hopes Trump will visit Hiroshima. He also expressed hope that ambassadors who attend the city's annual atomic bomb memorial ceremony on August 6 will relay the devastation caused by the bomb to their respective leaders.
The Hiroshima City assembly on Thursday unanimously adopted a resolution at a plenary session calling for the peaceful resolution of all armed conflicts.
The resolution states that the atomic-bombed city of Hiroshima cannot overlook nor accept remarks intended to justify the use of atomic bombs or that threaten the freedom of citizens.
The document also says that as this year marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing, the city assembly wants to reiterate its call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the realization of lasting world peace in line with the wishes of atomic bomb survivors.
The city assembly said it strongly urges peaceful resolutions from a humanitarian standpoint.
Nagasaki mayor hopes world leaders visit
Suzuki Shiro, the mayor of western Japan's Nagasaki City, told reporters that the use of nuclear weapons is "unacceptable" under any circumstances, given the tragic and inhumane consequences of the 1945 atomic bombings.
The mayor said he does not understand what Trump meant by the comments, but said that if they were aimed at justifying the atomic bomb attacks, Nagasaki would express its profound regret as one of the affected cities.
Suzuki said that against the backdrop of serious international situations, conveying the realities of the atomic bombings is essential, so that people will understand the inhumanity of nuclear weapons.
He expressed hope that Trump and other world leaders will visit Nagasaki to learn firsthand about the tragedies of the atomic bombing "with their own eyes, ears, and hearts."
Japanese government mentions remarks
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Hayashi Yoshimasa said at a news conference that the atomic bombings of the two Japanese cities claimed the lives of many people and inflicted unspeakable suffering, creating the worst kind of humanitarian crisis.
Hayashi said the use of nuclear weapons with enormous destructive power is inconsistent with the spirit of humanitarianism, which is the ideological basis for international law.
Asked whether the government intends to lodge a protest, Hayashi said that Japan has repeatedly conveyed its basic ideas about the atomic bombings to the US side, and will continue to maintain close communication.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.
2 hours ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
EU proposes eel trade restriction despite opposition from Japan
The European Union on Friday proposed making all eel species, including the Japanese eel, subject to regulation under an international treaty to protect endangered species — a move that Japan opposes. The EU, along with the Dominican Republic, Panama and Honduras, submitted the proposal to the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. The proposal is aimed at putting fry, full-grown eels and processed eel products of all 18 species under regulation. CITES, also known as the Washington convention, lists animals and plants requiring protection in annexes on three levels depending on the degree of regulation. The EU and others seek to add all eel species to the second level. The proposal will be discussed among parties to the pact at a conference in Uzbekistan from November to December. If the proposal is approved, exporters will be obliged to issue permits based on scientific assessments, putting eels and processed products under stricter trade control. Japan, where eels are prized food, opposes the proposal. "There is no risk of eels becoming extinct due to international trade," a fisheries agency official has said. On Friday, agriculture minister Shinjiro Koizumi voiced deep regret over the situation, adding that his country will do everything it can to block the adoption of the proposal in cooperation with China and South Korea.
