NewzIntel.com

Category: AM-NC

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: In Senate Floor Speech Ahead of Reconciliation Vote, Shaheen Decries Republican Megabill as “Largest Transfer of Wealth from the Poor to the Rich in a Single Bill in History”, Urges Colleagues to Vote No

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke on the Senate floor tonight to highlight the devastating impacts the Republican reconciliation bill will have on families in New Hampshire and across America. In her speech, Shaheen condemned the “Big Beautiful Bill” for ripping away health care and food assistance from millions of Americans, raising household energy costs, adding to the national debt and more in order to cut taxes for billionaires – labeling it the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in history. Click here to view Senator Shaheen’s remarks in full. 
    Key Quotes from Senator Shaheen:
    “This bill is the largest cut to health care in American history. […] Because of these cuts, more than 300 rural hospitals could close; more than 500 nursing homes could close. These are core programs and services that benefit our seniors, children, veterans, people living with disabilities and working families. […]Over the past several weeks, past couple of months, I’ve toured New Hampshire. I’ve heard from countless constituents who are deeply anxious about what this bill means for them and their families. Again and again, they say plainly: without Medicaid or the ACA, they wouldn’t be here today.” 
    “During this time of high food prices of increasing food insecurity, it’s particularly critical for families to be able to rely on SNAP to help them keep food on the table. One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring states to pay higher costs. Now, as the former governor of New Hampshire, I can tell you how much of a burden this is on our state’s budget.” 
    “For families concerned about energy costs, this bill only offers more pain. […] This bill cuts off long-standing tax credits for consumers—for average, everyday Americans—to make energy saving improvements to their homes or to add rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills. After countless promises to lower peoples’ energy bills, this legislation would do just the opposite.” 
    “You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more than 30 years ago. This bill that we’re considering today would do more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire time in public office. This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of energy, health care and education. This bill takes food and health care away from seniors and families, and it does all of that—it does all of that—to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process.” 
    Full Remarks as Delivered:
    Mr. President, I’m really here on the floor to oppose the reconciliation bill that we’re considering today.
    It would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in our history.
    This legislation would take away health care from millions of Americans. It would cut food aid for millions more. It would raise household energy and health care bills and it would add trillions to the debt, all to give the top, not just 1%, but the top .1% of people who make more than $2.5 million a year, an extra $250,000 a year. 
    At a moment when Americans are struggling with the high cost of living, this bill will take money out of the pockets of working people, the average household making less than $50,000. That’s 30% of Americans. So 30% of Americans will lose about $700 a year from this bill.
    Now, here are some of the ways that it hurts middle class Americans—the people who I’m very proud to represent in New Hampshire. Somehow the Senate took a bad bill, or what I thought was a bad bill from the House, and they made it much, much worse.
    This bill is the largest cut to health care in American history. In total, the bill proposes more than $1 trillion, $1 trillion, in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. $930 billion of that is Medicaid alone. And because of these cuts, more than 300 rural hospitals could close. More than 500 nursing homes could close.
    These are core programs and services that benefit seniors, children, veterans, people living with disabilities and working families.
    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million Americans, including 43,000 Granite Staters, will lose their health insurance.
    Now, over the past several weeks, past couple of months, I’ve toured New Hampshire. I’ve heard from countless constituents who are deeply anxious about what this bill means for them and for their families.
    Again and again, they have said plainly: without Medicaid, without the Affordable Care Act, they would not be here today.
    I heard from Danielle in Dalton, the northern part of New Hampshire. Danielle is a proud mother of three sons, two of whom have autism. Danielle’s sons rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and for their home care.
    Danielle is not only their full time caregiver, but she receives a stipend from Medicaid to provide for their care. And thanks to Medicaid, both of her sons are able to work part time. They’re able to live at home with their mom, and they’re able to remain active in the community.
    This bill would put all of that at risk. Danielle says her sons could have difficulty qualifying for Medicaid under these new rules, and losing Medicaid would be catastrophic for her family because it would likely force her sons out of work, out of her home and into a group home or institution.
    And so it’s going to cost a lot more if that happens. Her boys are now contributing members of society, and this bill threatens not only their livelihood and their independence and their future, it threatens their dignity.
    I heard from Sean in Claremont. Sean shared with me his story of addiction to alcohol, cocaine and heroin, and his long road to recovery. After several near-death experiences, he found stability in a sober living home and enrolled in Medicaid. With access to treatment, he was able to hold a job and get his life back on track.
    He eventually opened his own sober living home, Hope to Freedom, where he now helps others suffering from addiction so that they can enroll in Medicaid and begin their own journey to sobriety.
    I heard from Carla in Exeter. Carla has twin three year old boys, one of whom had serious medical complications at birth. Now, she was able to have health insurance with her job, but as her family’s medical bills piled up, she enrolled her son in Medicaid to ensure that he got the care that her family could not afford and her employee sponsored health insurance wouldn’t pay for. He still needs extensive care to this day, and losing her coverage would put her family into devastating medical debt.
    Probably the story that I heard that touched me as much as any was from a man in Berlin, in northern New Hampshire. He had had a number of substance misuse issues, mental health challenges, he said, without Medicaid, without the center—we were at a center where Medicaid helped pay to support people who needed help—he said, without this, I would just give up. I would commit suicide because there would be nothing for me.
    These are just a handful of the countless stories I’ve heard these past few months. They’re about real people. This bill isn’t just words on a page. It’s a direct attack on not only their health and their economic security, but their very dignity, their ability to have fulfilling lives and to contribute back to their communities and to society. We owe them better than this.
    This bill would also make catastrophic cuts to food assistance that’s provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP.
    During this time of high food prices of increasing food insecurity, it’s particularly critical for families to be able to rely on SNAP to help them keep food on the table.
    One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring states to pay higher costs.
    Now, as the former governor of New Hampshire, I can tell you how much of a burden this is on our state’s budget. And there are all kinds of provisions in this bill that are nothing but massive cost shifts to states, and this is one area.
    The bill puts food assistance at risk for families with teenage children, as well as older adults, veterans and individuals experiencing homelessness.
    In New Hampshire, an estimated 1,000 older adults could lose SNAP access.
    These cuts will mean increased hunger across the country.
    You know, we talk a lot about kitchen table issues here. Passing this bill is an explicit vote to take food off of families’ kitchen tables.
    I heard from Rachel. She’s a care coordinator at a behavioral health center in Claremont, which is in the western part of New Hampshire.
    She told me, and I’m quoting here, “SNAP is not just a program, it’s a lifeline. For the parents I work with, it means being able to send their children to school with full stomachs and functioning minds. For caregivers struggling to make ends meet, it provides some peace of mind knowing there will be something on the table each night. And for children, many of whom are navigating mental health challenges, SNAP supports stability, dignity and health during formative years. Without SNAP, the strain on these already vulnerable families would increase exponentially”.
    And she goes on to say, finally, “SNAP is not a handout. It’s a step forward for families working hard to survive and succeed against overwhelming odds”.
    And on the energy front, for families concerned about energy costs, this bill only offers more pain.
    In addition to cutting off tremendously successful incentives for electricity that are adding reliable, affordable and clean energy to the grid at a record pace, this bill cuts off longstanding tax credits for consumers, for average everyday Americans to make energy saving improvements to their homes, or to add rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills.
    After countless promises to lower people’s energy bills, this legislation would do just the opposite.
    Last year, 2.3 million families took advantage of the Home Energy efficiency tax credit and cut an average $130 off of their yearly energy bills.
    Now, that may not sound like a lot to the Mar-A-Lago crowd, but it makes a big difference for families in New Hampshire who worry about how they’re going to heat their homes.
    American households are expected to pay an extra $170 billion in energy bills over the next ten years thanks to misplaced priorities in this bill.
    And add to that 1.5 million good jobs that are likely to go away. And it makes you wonder if supporters of this bill have actually read it, or if they actually care about American energy dominance.
    And on taxes. This bill spends more than $4 trillion on tax cuts, including nearly $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the biggest corporations.
    But for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase—let me say that again, because I didn’t say that quite right with the right emphasis—for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase in 2029.
    And these are the same families who are going to be harmed most by extreme cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.
    Families making under $50,000 are likely to be worse off, and some could lose more than $1,500 a year under this bill.
    So if you add to that the effects of Trump’s tariffs, which raise the cost of living for a typical family by $2,000 a year, this makes it even worse for families.
    So the bottom 80% of households, those making less than $175,000, will be worse off on average under this bill.
    Now, I’ve talked about how this bill makes families pay more for health care, for energy and food in order to give more money to billionaires, but there are few other things that people should know.
    First, because of the trillions of dollars this bill would add to the debt, interest rates are likely to go up. That adds more than $1,000 a year for a typical mortgage.
    This bill makes it harder for students to afford the cost of college, and it removes debt protections for students who have been defrauded by their schools.
    And this bill actually tries to prohibit states from regulating AI for the next ten years, making it that much harder to keep our kids safe online and to protect jobs from being lost to the use of this technology.
    You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more than 30 years ago. This bill that we’re considering today would do more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire time in public office.
    This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of energy, health care and education.
    This bill takes food and health care away from seniors and families, and it does all of that—it does all of that to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process.
    That’s not what the people of New Hampshire are asking for, and it’s not what Americans deserve.
    And to my colleagues in the Senate, I say this: At a moment when Americans are feeling squeezed by the cost of living, we should be doing something about that.
    Instead of gutting health care to pay for tax cuts, we should be expanding access to affordable, quality care.
    Instead of turning our backs on working parents, we should be making housing more affordable, and we should ensure that every child has access to high quality, affordable early education.
    Instead of cutting nutrition programs, let’s make sure that no child in America goes hungry.
    Instead of driving up food and energy prices, let’s invest in the programs that help American families succeed.
    President Trump calls this the “Big Beautiful Bill”, but it is a big betrayal of the American people.
    There’s nothing beautiful about taking away health care and food from working families to give more money to billionaires.
    So I intend to vote against this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
    I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Hassan Speaks on the Senate Floor Against GOP Budget Bill That Raises Costs & Takes Away Health Care From Millions of Americans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate late last night on the harms of the Republican budget bill, which will take health care away from tens of thousands of Granite Staters, raise costs for families, make massive cuts to health care, and explode the national debt by trillions of dollars in order to pay for tax giveaways for corporate special interests and billionaires.  
    Senator Hassan also took to the airwaves with interviews on WMUR and MSNBC to make sure Granite Staters are hearing about the devastating impacts of the Republican budget bill. 
    Click here to see Senator Hassan’s remarks.
    Full Remarks as Delivered:
    I’m here today because I’m joining the majority of Americans who are deeply alarmed by this plan from the President and his Congressional allies, a plan that will make life less affordable for more Americans.
    When we return home for this Fourth of July, it’d be nice to be able to tell our constituents that we came together and passed bipartisan legislation to help bring down costs for families.
    Instead, my colleagues who vote for this legislation will have to explain why, at a time when families’ pocketbooks are strained, they chose to support a partisan bill to make American life even less affordable.
    What will America look like once this bill takes effect? Millions of people will have lost their health coverage thanks to the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. More people won’t be able to afford preventive care and cancer screenings. And more people will get sick. 
    Health care premiums will surge for everyone because fewer people will have care and the number of uninsured Americans will increase. Rural hospitals will close their doors because they lost Medicaid reimbursements that helped keep them afloat.
    More people, especially in states like mine, will have to make long car rides just to get to a hospital 50 miles away…in those desperate moments when minutes feel like hours, and hours like eternities.
    Seniors will be thrown into grave peril because this bill threatens hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. And once this plan eviscerates food assistance programs, it will be much harder for families to afford to put food on the table…at a time when groceries are already far too expensive…let there be no mistake, more families and children who today are being fed will go hungry. And all the while, our children will be burdened with trillions more in debt.
    In the name of what cause is all this done? Well, it’s all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.  
    This bill will also make us an America where our people are less free. In New Hampshire, during my time as Governor we adopted Medicaid Expansion with support from both political parties – and we balanced the budget at the same time.
    We understood that with health comes freedom; the freedom to work and provide for one’s family, the freedom from disease and despair, the freedom that comes from – why do I even have to say this – being alive. Granite Staters also understood that a great country like ours treats its people with great dignity.
    In America, we don’t sacrifice the health of our neighbors…we don’t let families fall sick…and we do not imperil our economy, our debt, and our workforce…just to pay for a tax giveaway for a billionaire.
    So what kind of country will we be with this bill? We will not only be less healthy, but we will be less prosperous and less free…in short, this bill is at odds with what we aspire to be as Americans.
    It’s also worth noting how remarkably out of step this bill is with the American people’s plea to bring down costs. In a democracy like ours, theoretically the people’s representatives pass legislation that reflects the aspirations of the majority. I say theoretically because clearly that is not what is happening today.
    Indeed, according to the data from the Joint Economic Committee – Minority, if one combines this bill with the President’s tariffs – firefighters, truck drivers, and teachers, for instance, will lose $470 or more next year; while the top 0.1%, that’s people who earn about 4 million dollars or more, will be $348,000 richer.
    This bill would take away health care from tens of thousands of Granite Staters and would take a similar toll across the country. Indeed, in both Florida and Texas the number of people who will lose their health insurance is greater than the entire population of New Hampshire…millions of people losing care with a stroke of a pen.
    What have these people done to deserve that? All the American people are asking for is for us to help bring down costs – so the President and the Republicans in Congress take away their health care?  
    Sometimes in Washington we’re faced with bills that fail to fully meet the moment to be sure. But it is rare to find legislation like this – a bill that makes life less affordable during a time when Americans of every political stripe are crying out for lower costs – a bill that seems as if it was drafted just to make a mockery of the wills and wishes of the majority of people in this country.
    Lately, many of my colleagues and some political pundits have been talking about this bill as if it were inevitable; a runaway freight train so vast that it cannot be stopped, and in light of this inevitability, they suggest that some of the bill’s deficiencies can just be overlooked. But, of course, this bill was not inevitable – nor is it now.  
    So let’s be clear – each and every Senator in this body has free will. God given free will. Which means that the measures in this legislation that gut Medicaid weren’t written by mistake or by chance. We didn’t arrive at this day, with a vote on this terrible budget bill, by accident.
    Let’s not delude ourselves…we’re only here because a majority in this body decided to ignore the majority of the country and made a series of decisions;
    The Republican majority decided to gut Medicaid;
    They decided to take away health care from millions;
    They decided to raise insurance premiums for the rest of us;
    They decided that closed hospitals were a risk worth taking;
    They decided that taking food away from hungry kids was acceptable;
    They decided that trillions more in debt was not a problem;
    The Republican majority decided that depriving the American people of all these things and raising their costs were worth it, just as long as they paid for another tax break for billionaires. 
    Because that’s the bargain that this Administration along with my Republican colleagues is forcing the American people to accept. Our people will be less healthy, our kids will have more debt, but the President and billionaires like him will get a tax break.  
    Of course, part of what makes this bill so frustrating is that it includes some individual provisions that I’ve spent years trying to pass into law. This bill includes provisions I support, some even that I authored, like strengthening the R&D tax deduction to support our entrepreneurs and a tax cut for families to make child care more affordable.
    I also support this bill’s provisions which would tackle our housing crisis by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to bring down the cost of housing, as well as a provision making mortgage insurance tax deductible so that it’s easier to buy a home. And I’d support a bill with real tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, unlike the token measures included in this bill.
    If my Republican colleagues worked across the aisle to draft a bill that brought this bipartisan approach to other critical areas – like health care and food assistance – I’d vote for it.  
    Instead, my colleagues chose to take these commonsense solutions hostage by linking every good idea to three bad ones – turning this into a purely partisan endeavor.
    So yes, I’m glad that some of these bipartisan provisions will be signed into law, but I regret that they aren’t a part of a truly bipartisan effort because of the politics of division and destruction that President Trump brings to Washington.
    Now I know that there are many areas of common ground with my Republican colleagues in this body, but it has become far too difficult to move forward on finding solutions when at every turn the President seems far more interested in demonizing and dividing rather than bringing people together.
    Turning areas of agreement into weapons to force disagreement…now that’s exactly the kind of cynical politics of division that does lasting damage to our families, our economy, and our democracy.
    Now President Trump likely will get this bill passed – he may get enough of the Republican caucus to stand in line once again to pass it. Even though my Republican colleagues know that budget analysts have added up the financial cost of this bill and have told them that it adds trillions upon trillions to our national debt, burdening our children’s future.
    But you know as important as the debt is, it’s not the only cost of passing this awful bill. There’s another kind of cost, a cost not simply of dollars and cents. I shouldn’t have to remind this Administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the nature of this cost – they know it.
    But just to be clear, this tax break for corporate special interests and billionaires has a price, a price that can’t be summed up in a budget line or written off during tax season.
    Because when we debate health care in America, some dress up these discussions with words like “reconciliation” and “program” and “discretionary spending” but what they’re talking about is being sick and being healthy, what they’re talking about – whether they want to admit it or not – is living and dying.  
    So how much does this bill cost?
    The cost is millions of Americans losing their health care;
    The cost is countless families feeling the pain of higher insurance premiums;
    The cost is a mother being forced to choose between paying out of pocket for her own care or paying for groceries for her kids.
    It’s a price that’s exacted in cancers that go undetected; it’s exacted in chronic illnesses that go untreated; it’s exacted in the health care challenges in our country that continue to go unaddressed because we spend all our energies simply trying to keep our heads above water in floods of the President’s own making.
    The price tag is more than dollars and cents; it includes the cost of losing more people from our workforce because they’re too ill to work; it includes the gnawing pains of hunger and the slow toll of malnutrition that will come as food assistance programs are robbed; it includes the anguish of young parents no longer knowing how they will make ends meet;
    It includes the lost hopes and deferred dreams of people held back by illness; it includes the cost of having to say more early goodbyes.
    What is the price tag of this bill? The price, in the end, is the health and freedom of millions of Americans; a price that will be paid because somewhere on the road that brought us here…here in President Trump’s Washington…some people decided that the health of some child or her mother may be dear, but it doesn’t carry the same weight as a bigger tax return for a billionaire does.
    Thank you, Madam President, I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Alford, Gonzales Introduce Bill to Create Military Campaign Service Medal for Service Members Who Supported Operation Midnight Hammer

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mark Alford (Missouri 4th District)

    Today, Congressmen Mark Alford (MO-04) and Tony Gonzales (TX-23) introduced the Iranian Campaign Medal Act. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish and award a United States military decoration to service members who served in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer.

     “As the Congressman representing Whiteman Air Force Base, I’m proud to co-lead this bill recognizing our airmen’s contributions to Operation Midnight Hammer,” said Congressman Alford. “It was not just the pilots—it was also the maintenance, planning, operational, and support personnel whose unparalleled coordination made this mission a resounding success. The Iranian Campaign was the ultimate testament to President Trump’s peace through strength agenda.”

    “During my 20 years of military service, including multiple campaigns in the Middle East, I served side by side with the finest troops in the world. No matter what the mission is, American servicemembers always rise to the challenge, and Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran is no exception. There is no other military in the world that could have executed a precision strike on nuclear sites with such excellence, and the men and women who made it happen deserve full recognition for their efforts. I’m especially proud that the airmen involved received training at our military installations in San Antonio, which highlights yet again the importance of Military City, U.S.A.,” said Congressman Tony Gonzales. “The Iranian Campaign Medal Act will authorize the Department of Defense to establish a military service medal for our troops deployed to Iran under President Trump’s decisive leadership.”

    Read the text of the legislation here.

    U.S. Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO), Pat Fallon (R-TX), August Pfluger (R-TX), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), and Rob Bresnahan (R-PA) supported Congressmen Alford and Gonzales’ legislation as original co-sponsors.

    Background:

    On June 22, 2025, President Trump authorized a precision strike at three Iranian nuclear sites to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Executed by 14 American pilots flying seven B-2 bombers out of Whiteman AFB, and supported by over 125 U.S. aircraft, including dozens of aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and approximately 75 precision-guided munitions, the strike successfully targeted critical Iranian nuclear infrastructure at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In keeping with longstanding tradition, Congress has the authority to establish a commemorative service medal to honor service members for their contributions to military operations.

    The Iranian Campaign Medal Act authorizes the creation and award of a United States military decoration to service members who served in Iran in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer, as well as any additional operations or periods the Secretary of Defense may designate.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Nick Langworthy Announces Over $6.7 Million Grant for Head Start Projects in Chautauqua

    Source: US Congressman Nick Langworthy (NY-23)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Nick Langworthy (NY-23) announced that Chautauqua Opportunities Inc. has been awarded $6,767,042 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for Head Start Projects. 

     

    “I am proud to support the over $6.7 million from HHS for Head Start Projects in Chautauqua,” said Congressman Langworthy. “Head Start programming is essential to families in our community and this funding will ensure children have the best opportunity to learn and be nurtured. I am excited to see this program flourish with this federal assistance.”

     

    Head Start is based on the premise that all children share certain needs and that children of income eligible families can benefit from a comprehensive developmental program to meet those needs. The program maximizes the strengths and unique experiences of each child. The family, which is the principal influence on the child’s development, is a direct participant in the program.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Malliotakis Celebrates Lucy the Pig’s Vindication

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)

    (STATEN ISLAND, NY) – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis issued the following statement regarding Lucy the Pig’s vindication.

     

    “We are overjoyed to learn that Mayor Adams heard our pleas and is allowing Lucy to stay in her loving home with the Gannone Family. The idea that this properly registered emotional support animal who has been part of the family for years could be confiscated or cause her owners to be fined thousands of dollars was unsettling. Mayor Adams made the right call here, we were happy to have helped and we wish Lucy and her family well in her remaining days.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Federal government strengthens the Canadian Free Trade Agreement

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    Ottawa, Ontario, (June 30, 2025) – Today, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, announced a historic step towards freer trade within Canada.

    As part of the Government’s efforts to build one Canadian economy, the federal government will be removing all remaining federal exceptions from the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), eliminating all 53 in the Agreement since its introduction in 2017.  

    Most of the exceptions removed focus on procurement, which will provide Canadian businesses with more opportunities to be competitive across the country. For example, as part of this last review, the federal government is removing procurement exceptions related to financial entities, commercial land development, transportation services and space projects.

    All provincial and territorial governments have committed to undertaking a review of their respective exceptions under the CFTA. Together, they have made great progress and the results will be announced at the upcoming meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade on July 8, 2025.

    Today’s announcement builds on the government’s efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy. Most recently, the government passed Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which will remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility, and advance nation-building projects to drive Canadian productivity, economic growth, and competitiveness.  

    The federal government will continue to show leadership in this area, and work with provinces and territories to strengthen the CFTA, advance mutual recognition, and ensure seamless labour mobility within Canada.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Ōtāhuhu homicide: Man charged

    Source: New Zealand Police

    Police have now charged a man in relation to a homicide in Ōtāhuhu on Sunday night.

    Emergency services were called to a Beatty Street property at about 8.30pm following a report of a person being seriously injured.

    A man was transported to hospital but later died of his injuries.

    Detective Inspector Karen Bright, of Counties Manukau CIB, says a man was taken into custody yesterday afternoon and Police are not seeking anyone else in relation to the investigation.

    “A 31-year-old man has been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and will appear in Manukau District Court today.

    “This is a great result and Police haven’t ruled out the possibility of further charges.”

    Detective Inspector Bright says the investigation remains ongoing and thanked those who had come forward to speak with Police.

    As the matter is before the Court, Police are limited in providing further comment.

    ENDS.

    Holly McKay/NZ Police

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Energy Secretary Announces Updated NEPA Procedures to End Permitting Paralysis and Unleash American Energy

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WASHINGTON— The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced new updates to the Department’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures, fixing the broken permitting process and delivering on President Trump’s pledge to unleash American energy dominance and accelerate critical energy infrastructure. As part of a government-wide effort to restore common sense to permitting, DOE published an interim final rule rescinding all NEPA regulations and published new NEPA guidance procedures for the Department of Energy.

    “President Trump promised to break the permitting logjam, and he is delivering,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “America can and will build big things again, but we must cut the red tape that has brought American energy innovation to a standstill and end this era of permitting paralysis. These reforms replace outdated rules with clear deadlines, restore agency authority, and put us back on the path to energy dominance, job creation, and commonsense action. Build, baby, build!”

    “This overhaul restores NEPA to the role originally envisioned by Congress—informing agency decision makers, not needlessly obstructing the development of critical infrastructure,” said Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly. “We’re eliminating the accretion of decades of unnecessary procedure and reestablishing a legally sound permitting regime that is disciplined, predictable, and fast. Agencies finally have the authority to conduct reviews efficiently, avoid duplicative reviews, and deliver timely decisions consistent with the law.”

    With President Trump’s leadership, the Council on Environmental Quality coordinated a historic, interagency effort to simplify NEPA compliance, lower construction costs, eliminate years-long delays, and ensure environmental reviews can no longer be used to stall American energy production and infrastructure development. Today’s action fulfils President Trump’s Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and implementing reforms enacted by Congress under the 2023 BUILDER Act.

    Background:

    This effort builds on President Trump’s January 2025 action to rescind CEQ’s outdated NEPA regulations and return the agency to its statutory role of coordinating reform across the federal government, empowering agencies to make timely, lawful permitting decisions. Altogether, these reforms will enable the deployment of more efficient technologies and the better environmental outcomes that they provide.

    Key reforms include:

    • Eliminating outdated agency procedures, many of which had not been revised since the 1980’s, while maintaining world class environmental standards and allowing America to build again!
    • Reducing the maximum Environmental Assessment through Environmental Impact Statement report completion time limitations from three years to two years.
    • Requiring the designation of a “lead agency” and empowers the lead agency to clarify responsibilities of all parties involved, requires coordination amongst the agencies, and requires the agencies collaborate on the development of a single environmental document.
    • Implementing strict deadlines and page limits. This will provide certainty necessary for investment in American infrastructure and end past practices of paralysis by analysis.
    • Providing clear direction that agencies should use common sense, relying only on verified scientific studies that already exist and not contemplating wildly unfathomable scenarios that they do not have legal authority to address.
    • Increasing transparency and allowing project sponsors to participate in the process.
    • Directing agencies to maximize the use of a streamlined process known as “categorical exclusions” for activities that are regularly conducted and widely understood to not impact the environment.

    Additionally, DOE’s NEPA Procedures include discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Seven County, which limits requirements for agencies to analyze upstream and downstream Greenhouse Gas (GHG) effects and curtails radical climate change analysis associated with activities outside agency jurisdiction. DOE NEPA analysis should not consider environmental effects of separate projects, especially those over which DOE does not exercise regulatory authority.

    DOE’s updated procedures identify specific actions excluded from NEPA review, including issuance of emergency Orders pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and Presidential Permits, and authorizations to import natural gas from any country and to export natural gas to free-trade agreement countries.

    DOE’s Interim Final Rule will publish in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. A PDF of the IFR is available here.

    DOE’s updated NEPA guidance documents are available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Commencement of the new National Access to Justice Partnership

    Source:

    Today, the new $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30 (NAJP) commences, replacing the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25 and delivering a critical increase of $800 million in funding over 5 years from 2025-26 to the legal assistance sector.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: New crossing opens over SR 500 in Vancouver

    Source: Washington State News 2

    Pedestrian bridge at Northeast Stapleton Road and Northeast 54th Avenue restores access across SR 500 for people walking, biking or rolling

    VANCOUVER – After nearly seven years, the wait is finally over—Vancouver’s new pedestrian and bike bridge over State Route 500 is now open.

    On Monday, June 30, the Washington State Department of Transportation’s contractor, Cascade Bridge LLC, finished constructing the bridge that spans SR 500 near Northeast Stapleton Road and Northeast 54th Avenue, to fulfill a promise made in 2018. That year, WSDOT removed the traffic signals and crosswalks at this location to reduce rear-end crashes and improve safety for drivers. The change improved traffic flow but forced people walking, biking and rolling to take longer, indirect routes. 

    “From the beginning, we made a clear commitment to come back and restore this connection once funding became available,” said WSDOT Project Engineer Susan Fell. “We’re proud to see this work finished and to provide an accessible crossing for everyone in the community.” 

    Over the last year, crews constructed sidewalks, mid-block crossings and a shared use path near the SR 500 and Northeast Stapleton Road/54th Street intersection. They also constructed the pathway, walls and the bridge structure itself. In the final weeks of the project, they: 

    • Removed the abandoned islands in the roadway at Northeast Falk Road/42nd Street and at Northeast Stapleton Road/54th Street.
    • Repaved SR 500’s eastbound lanes and installed roadway striping.
    • Paved the pathway to the bridge.
    • Painted the bridge and installed safety fencing along both sides of the overcrossing.
    • Completed permanent lighting and accessibility features. 

    During construction, WSDOT partnered with C-TRAN, Clark County’s transit provider, to provide a temporary, on-demand shuttle service to help people cross SR 500. With the bridge now open, travelers have a permanent, ADA-accessible route to walk, bike or roll across the highway.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Fannie Mae Releases May 2025 Monthly Summary

    Source: Fannie Mae

    WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae’s (FNMA/OTCQB) May 2025 Monthly Summary is now available. The monthly summary report contains information about Fannie Mae’s monthly and year-to-date activities for our gross mortgage portfolio, mortgage-backed securities and other guarantees, interest rate risk measures, and serious delinquency rates.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Fannie Mae Releases May 2025 Monthly Summary

    Source: Fannie Mae

    WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae’s (FNMA/OTCQB) May 2025 Monthly Summary is now available. The monthly summary report contains information about Fannie Mae’s monthly and year-to-date activities for our gross mortgage portfolio, mortgage-backed securities and other guarantees, interest rate risk measures, and serious delinquency rates.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Five years already! 

    Source: – Press Release/Statement:

    Headline: Five years already! 

    The Canadian Renewable Energy Association celebrates 5th anniversary.

    Ottawa, June 30, 2025—The Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA) is proud to celebrate its fifth anniversary on July 1, 2025. CanREA launched on July 1, 2020, during the global pandemic, as the merger of Canada’s wind and solar industry associations (CanWEA and CanSIA), with the important addition of energy storage to the mandate. 

    Created to provide a unified voice for solar energy, wind energy, and energy storage in Canada, CanREA has since grown to a total of more than 330 members, with seven member Networks (federal, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan & Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada) and three national Programs (Operators, BTM Solar & Storage, and Utility GRID Integration), as well as four successful annual Summits, nearly 30 staff members, 10 annual networking events, an ongoing series of industry webinars, and the second-largest social media community of all the Canadian trade associations in any sector. 

    “I want to thank our members for their support over the past five years, which has enabled our advocacy work and helped secure many key successes for the industry so far. This five-year milestone is an occasion to look back and see how far we have come, but more importantly, to look ahead. CanREA is committed to advancing the Canadian wind, solar and energy storage industries for the next five years, and for many more years to come,” said Vittoria Bellissimo, CanREA’s President and CEO.   

    CanREA is marking the anniversary by launching a new Awards Program, and other activities throughout the year.  

    Top 5 priorities for 2025-26  

    As we enter our new fiscal year on July 1, 2025, CanREA has defined five ambitious new strategic objectives to guide our priorities. These include: 

    Executing a comprehensive advocacy plan to effectively respond to evolving government mandates; 

    Optimizing outcomes for ongoing procurement processes in Ontario, BC and Quebec;  

    Executing on our new BTM strategy;  

    Building strategic alliances to enhance key messaging, collect information on project economics, and advocate for infrastructure and other support initiatives, including energy corridors opportunities; 

    All the while providing excellent membership value for all our members. 

    Top 10 accomplishments: Annual report card 2024-25 

    Looking back on the past year, there is a lot for CanREA—and the industry—to celebrate. Here is a recap of Top Ten accomplishments of 2024-5, starting with the most recent items: 

    Advocacy in Ontario: CanREA successfully worked to reduce barriers and improve clarity for access to agricultural land and Crown land, shaping the LT2 contracts and RFPs that were launched in late June. This is the first time in a decade the industry can bid on new wind and solar projects in Ontario!

    Advocacy in Manitoba: CanREA expanded the Saskatchewan Network to include Manitoba this year and devoted a Policy Director to this mandate. CanREA’s recommendations to Manitoba’s Minister of Finance were reflected in Manitoba Hydro’s 600 MW Call for Power for Indigenous Majority-Owned Wind, for which the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) was issued in June.  

    Indigenous engagement: This year, CanREA’s new Director of Indigenous Engagement led efforts to enhance Indigenous cultural awareness for the staff and Board of Directors, develop the outline for CanREA’s Indigenous Reconciliation Action Roadmap, expand the Indigenous Business Pavilion at ETC, and collaborate with Indigenous Clean Energy (ICE) to present CanREA’s Manitoba Wind Energy Indigenous Equity Summit in June.

    Advocacy in BC: CanREA expanded its presence to BC this year, with a new BC Director, a new BC Network, and a MOU with Clean Energy BC. CanREA is now working with BC Hydro to support the integration of renewables into the grid in its new Call for Power, announced in May, and its two new requests for expressions of interest relevant to energy storage, announced in June. 

    Advocacy in Quebec: CanREA successfully worked to optimize the ongoing procurement process in Quebec. One highlight: in May, Hydro-Québec launched a 300 MW solar energy tender. This milestone represents the first major solar procurement in Quebec, part of a broader objective to develop 3,000 MW of solar capacity by 2035.  

    Utilities: CanREA launched a new Utility GRID Integration program in May. Evolving from CanREA’s NRCan-funded Electricity Transition Hub, the program helps members integrate clean, affordable and reliable electricity into Canada’s power grids.    

    Go Solar Guide 2025: In March, CanREA’s new BTM Solar and Storage Program launched a new and improved edition of our annual Go Solar Guide, encouraging more Canadians to generate their own solar energy at home and work, and listing of all CanREA’s solar installer members. Now available as a web portal, the information is free and accessible to all.  

    Advocacy in Atlantic Canada: CanREA is building momentum in Atlantic Canada, enabled by a new, full-time Policy Manager based in New Brunswick. Our renewed advocacy efforts have led to policy wins across the region, including the Nova Scotia Green Choice Program RFP, which awarded 625 MW of wind in January, nearly double the original call for 350 MW. 

    ITCs: CanREA successfully advocated with the federal government to optimize and accelerate the Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) in Canada, as the Clean Tech ITC was implemented into law in the fall.

    Procurement calendar: In October, CanREA launched a new Clean Energy Procurement Calendar, which we continue to monitor and update as new procurements get announced or come online across the nation. 

    Quotes 

    “I want to thank our members for their support over the past five years, which has enabled our advocacy work and helped secure many key successes for the industry so far. This five-year milestone is an occasion to look back and see how far we have come, but more importantly, to look ahead. CanREA is committed to advancing the Canadian wind, solar and energy storage industries for the next five years, and for many more years to come.”  

    —Vittoria Bellissimo, President and CEO, Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA) 

    For media inquiries or interview opportunities, please contact:  

    CommunicationsCanadian Renewable Energy Associationcommunications@renewablesassociation.ca

    About CanREA  

    The Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA) is the voice for wind energy, solar energy and energy storage solutions that will power Canada’s energy future. We work to create the conditions for a modern energy system through stakeholder advocacy and public engagement. Our diverse members are uniquely positioned to deliver clean, low-cost, reliable, flexible and scalable solutions for Canada’s energy needs. For more information on how Canada can use wind energy, solar energy and energy storage to help achieve its net-zero commitments, consult “Powering Canada’s Journey to Net-Zero: CanREA’s 2050 Vision.” Follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn here. Learn more at renewablesassociation.ca.   

    –30–   
    The post Five years already!  appeared first on Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick Releases Statement on DRC-Rwanda Peace Agreement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida 20th district))

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) released the following statement on the signing of a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda: 
     
    “I welcome the announcement of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda—an important step that offers hope to the millions who have suffered from years of conflict in eastern Congo. The commitments to end hostilities, allow humanitarian access, and facilitate the safe return of refugees are essential to achieving lasting peace. 
     
    “In May, I joined several of my colleagues in urging Senior Advisor Dr. Massad Boulos to ensure that the negotiations included provisions for U.S. humanitarian and global health assistance to reach conflict-affected regions in the DRC. 
     
    “While we commend the progress reflected in this agreement—including mutual recognition, disarmament, refugee repatriation, and economic integration—we urge the administration to appoint a U.S. Special Representative to oversee implementation with transparency and accountability. 
     
    “This agreement also opens the door to future cooperation, including the development of a U.S.-DRC critical minerals agreement. I encourage the administration to pursue this opportunity with a shared commitment to regional stability, economic development, and environmental responsibility. 
     
    “Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution to support U.S. investment in Africa’s critical mineral sector, recognizing the continent’s strategic importance in the global clean energy transition. This resolution underscores the importance of sustainable and inclusive partnerships with African nations.” 
     
    Read the full resolution here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: UN Secretary-General’s remarks at the International Business Forum at the Conference on Financing for Development [bilingual, as delivered; scroll down for all-English]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.
     
    Development is everyone’s business.
     
    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
     
    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.
     
    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.
     
    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.
     
    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.
     
    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 
     
    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.
     
    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.
     
    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.
     
    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.
     
    One decade later, we continue to fall short.
     
    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.
     
    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.
     
    We need to create the conditions to change course.
     
    And that begins here in Spain.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:
     
    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…
     
    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…
     
    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.
     
    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.
     
    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.
     
    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.
     
    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.
     
    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.
     
    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.
     
    Señoras y senõres,
                                                                            
    En todo momento, contamos con el liderazgo y la visión de todos ustedes para llevar adelante el espíritu de colaboración y adoptar soluciones audaces.
     
    Al reunir a los líderes de los sectores público y privado, a los reguladores y a los bancos de desarrollo, podemos garantizar que esta conferencia no es un final, sino un principio.
     
    El comienzo de una nueva era de acción y colaboración en algunos de los problemas más urgentes a los que se enfrenta hoy nuestro mundo.
     
    Y un nuevo amanecer para la manera en que se financia el progreso del desarrollo en todo el mundo.
     
    Gracias a todos ustedes por participar en este importante esfuerzo. Espero que la participación conjunta de los sectores público y privado pueda multiplicar los recursos que tenemos.

    Sabiendo que mucha más inversión es necesaria en el mundo de hoy, pero que hay mecanismos que permiten que los fondos públicos disponibles movilicen muchísimo más que hoy la financiación y la inversión privada. 

    *****
    [All-English]

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.

    Development is everyone’s business.

    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.

    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.

    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.

    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.

    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 

    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.

    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.

    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.

    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.

    One decade later, we continue to fall short.

    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.

    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.

    We need to create the conditions to change course.

    And that begins here in Spain.

    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:

    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…

    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…

    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.

    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.

    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.

    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.

    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.

    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.

    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.

    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.

    Ladies and gentleman,

    Throughout, we are counting on the leadership and vision of all of you to carry forward the spirit of collaboration and bold solutions.

    By uniting public and private sector leaders, regulators and development banks, we can ensure that this conference is not an end, but rather a beginning.

    The beginning of a new era of action and collaboration on some of the most urgent issues facing our world today.

    And a new dawn for how we finance development progress around the world.

    Thank you all for being part of this important effort. I hope that the joint participation of the public and private sectors can multiply the resources we have.

    Knowing that much more investment is needed in today’s world, but that there are mechanisms that allow available public funds to mobilize much more private financing and investment than today.
     
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Kiwis can now access 24/7 primary healthcare from anywhere in New Zealand

    Source: New Zealand Government

    New Zealanders can now access trusted primary healthcare around the clock, no matter where they are in the country, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.  

    “A new 24/7 digital health service, launched today, means people can have virtual consultations with New Zealand-registered doctors and nurses, anytime, anywhere,” Mr Brown says.  

    “This is about making sure Kiwis can get the medical help they need when they need it, especially when they can’t get a timely appointment with their regular general practitioner (GP), or outside normal clinic hours.”  

    The service connects patients to clinicians through trusted providers using secure digital technology. Doctors and nurse practitioners can assess symptoms, diagnose conditions, prescribe medications, and provide referrals – all from wherever the patient is. 

    Since its pilot launch in May, nearly 4,500 New Zealanders have already accessed the digital service, which is now fully available to the public.

    “This means people can receive professional medical advice and treatment when they need it – no matter where they are or what time it is, including: 

    • A mother with a sick child in the middle of the night
    • Someone waking up with a sudden rash on a public holiday
    • A farmer in rural New Zealand needing help after hours
    • A family on holiday in a different part of the country
    • Someone not enrolled with a local GP. 

    “It also helps ease pressure on emergency departments by treating non-urgent issues earlier and in the right setting. 

    “This digital service is giving people greater access to the care they need, but does not replace the critical role of GPs, who are responsible for their patients’ continuity of care. It ensures care is available when and where it’s needed, helping bridge the gap when traditional access to a GP isn’t possible. 

    “That’s why providers will be required to send clinical notes back to a patient’s GP after an appointment. This ensures safe, consistent treatment and strengthens follow-up care, and is about delivering connected care New Zealanders can trust. 

    “At the same time, we’re backing GPs with a record up to 14 per cent funding boost this year to support the critical work they do in our communities. 

    “Our Government is focused on ensuring all New Zealanders have access to timely, quality healthcare. That includes investing in digital solutions to make primary care more responsive and connected,” Mr Brown says.  

    The 24/7 online GP service is now live at info.health.nz/onlinegp, with full details on pricing and how to access care through approved providers, including their operating hours. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Status of the Chagos Archipelago – Part I: History of the Disputes Surrounding its Status and the Creation of a UK-US Military Base

    Source: US Global Legal Monitor

    The following is a guest post by Clare Feikert-Ahalt, a senior foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress covering the United Kingdom and several other jurisdictions. Clare has written numerous posts for In Custodia Legis, including Revealing the Presence of Ghosts; Weird Laws, or Urban Legends?; FALQs: Brexit Referendum; 100 Years of “Poppy Day” in the United Kingdom; and most recently Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office Spurs Possible Law Change.

    A small, but important, island known as Diego Garcia has given rise to a number of legal challenges and international agreements that date back to Britain’s colonial era. The challenges surround whether the detachment from Mauritius, and subsequent colonization of the Chagos Archipelago, which consists of several islands and atolls remotely located in the center of the Indian Ocean, including the island of Diego Garcia, was lawful, and whether the removal and prohibition on the return of its inhabitants occurred within the bounds of the law. A recent agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and Mauritius settles the disputes, by returning Chagos Archipelago to Mauritus and providing the UK with continued use of a military base, which I will describe in a post tomorrow. Today I will look at the history that preceded the agreement.

    UK Colonization of Chagos Archipelago

    One of the driving forces for the UK colonization of Chagos Archipelago was the establishment of a defense facility, to be operated jointly with the United States (US). Almost immediately upon detaching the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and establishing the colony of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) the UK, after undertaking a survey to determine the most appropriate location for a defense facility, entered into an agreement with the US to allow Diego Garcia to be used for defense purposes. The US subsequently constructed, and jointly operated with the UK, a defense facility that according to the UK government provides “crucial strategic capabilities, which have played a key role in missions to disrupt high-value terrorists, including Islamic State threats to the UK.”

    History of the Chagos Archipelago and Diego Garcia

    The BIOT, which includes Diego Garcia, was the last colony established by the British as its colonial era entered into its waning days and Mauritius was on the verge of obtaining independence. In 1965, the government of the UK and a representative of Mauritius signed an agreement detaching the Chagos Archipelago from the territory of Mauritius.

    The agreement between the UK and Mauritius provided the legal foundation for the UK to establish the BIOT as new colony in the Chagos Archipelago, which initially included three other islands detached from Seychelles that were later ceded back to the Seychelles upon their independence in 1976. In return for the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, the UK government provided Mauritius with a grant of £3 million (approximately US$4 million), along with a commitment to return the islands to Mauritius at a later date when it no longer needed the territory for defense purposes. Once under UK control, in 1966, the UK signed an agreement with the US to establish a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

    Independence of Mauritius Leads to Legal Dispute over Territorial Definition

    Mauritius was granted independence from the UK in 1968, but the definition of Mauritius, contained in the Mauritius Independence Act 1968, which became its constitution and was promulgated by the government of the UK prior to Mauritius’ independence, does not include the Chagos Archipelago. Instead “Mauritius” is defined in section 5 of the 1968 Act as “the territories which immediately before the appointed day constitute the Colony of Mauritius.” The Mauritian government later claimed that its independence was made conditional upon the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from its territory and disputed the sovereignty of the UK over the Chagos Archipelago.

    This bilateral dispute progressed through numerous meetings, international exchanges, courts and tribunals for a period of 60 years until the UK and Mauritius signed the recent agreement providing sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius..

    United Nations Resolution of 1966

    In 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted a resolution condemning the British for exercising sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and calling for it to be returned to Mauritius.  In the same year, the UK and US reached an agreement providing for the use of an island in the Chagos Archipelago for defense purposes. The agreement provided that the UK government would take any administrative measures necessary to ensure the defense needs were met, which included the resettlement of the inhabitants of the islands.

    Challenges Regarding Status Continue

    The challenges faced by the Chagossians, along with their efforts to reclaim Diego Garcia are well detailed and documented in the decisions of the courts in which they lodged their claims.

    The UK entered into an agreement with Mauritius in 1972 whereby it agreed to pay Mauritius £650,000 (approximately US$875,000) for the cost of resettlement of people displaced from the Chagos Archipelago. The UK reached an additional agreement with Mauritius in 1982, under which it paid a further £4 million (approximately US$5.4 million) to be placed into a trust fund for the Chagossians removed from the islands as a final settlement of all claims, without admitting liability.

    Despite these agreements and settlement, Mauritius continued to challenge the legitimacy of British sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and the Chagossians challenged the legality of their resettlement and exile from Diego Garcia. During these challenges, and in response to a judgment from England’s High Court, the UK government conducted a feasibility study in 2002 into the return of the Chagossians to Diego Garcia. The study concluded that if the Chagossians were permitted to return to live on Diego Garcia, the costs of long-term inhabitation would be prohibitive and that natural events, such as flooding and seismic activity “would make life difficult for a resettled population.”

    Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

    In 2019, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that the decolonization of Mauritius was not completed lawfully and that an international agreement was not possible when one territory was under the authority of the other. The ICJ stated that the UK “has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.” The UK government acknowledged the opinion, but noted it was not legally binding. It stated that it did “not share the court’s approach” and asserted that it has exercised sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago since 1814. The UK affirmed that it stood by its commitment “to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes.”

    While advisory opinions from the ICJ are not binding, the UK government in 2025 acknowledged that they do “carr[y] significant weight; in particular it is likely to be highly influential on any subsequent court/tribunal”. This advisory opinion had a “meaningful real-world impact on the sustainability of UK sovereignty and the operation of the Base.” In particular, the UK government determined that if Mauritius made another legal challenge, its “… longstanding legal view is that [the UK] would not have a realistic prospect of success.”

    The advisory opinion was followed in 2021, by a case heard by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea relating to the delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives and the court ruled that the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago could be inferred from the advisory opinion made by the International Court of Justice.

    The Congress of the Universal Postal Union also recognized Mauritius as responsible for making decisions regarding international postal services in the Chagos Archipelago. The UK government determined these decisions “confirmed the risk that a future (binding) case could be brought successfully against the UK” and that this “would create serious real-world operational impacts for the Base.”

    Between the years 2021-2022, the UK used diplomacy and bilateral initiatives to attempt to steer Mauritius away from commencing further legal challenges, but these were unsuccessful and “… it became clear by mid-2022 that the only viable means to halt the process was to enter negotiations” and the start of these were announced in November 2022. They resulted in the May 2025 agreement, which I will describe in tomorrow’s post. Stay tuned!

    ——————————————————————————————————————————–

    Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

    Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump.

    We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle, and a documentary trawling through the controversial tenure of former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    Joh: Last King of Queensland

    Stan

    The new documentary film Joh: Last King of Queensland offers a dramatised account of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s premiership from 1968 to 1987.

    Directed by Kriv Stenders, using reenactments (Bjelke-Petersen is played by Richard Roxburgh), archival footage and contemporary interviews, the film portrays him as a complex and polarising figure. Roxburgh highlights Bjelke-Petersen’s rhetorical simplicity. He presented himself as an advocate for “ordinary” Queenslanders, especially in rural and conservative communities.

    We are given a man who is socially conservative, economically ambitious and politically divisive. A man who profoundly shaped Queensland’s governance and development. But while the film effectively captures his popular appeal and role in the state’s economic transformation, it simplifies key aspects of his political ascent.

    In particular, it doesn’t capture the complexities of electoral mechanics, internal party manoeuvring and the influence of the public service.

    Bjelke-Petersen’s legacy continues to polarise. To supporters, he remains a visionary who championed economic growth and conservative values. To critics, he presided over an era of democratic erosion, civil rights suppression and entrenched corruption.

    His story reflects the enduring tension between executive authority and democratic accountability in modern Australian political history.

    – John Mickel



    Read more:
    Joh: Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story

    Jaws

    Various platforms

    Steven Spielberg’s Jaws, released 50 years ago, was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    Chief of Police Martin Brody has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife and two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    The mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half. Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music.

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    – Will Jeffery



    Read more:
    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    KPop Demon Hunters

    Netflix

    KPop Demon Hunters is an animated movie that follows a Korean girl band, Huntrix, whose members happen to be covert demon hunters. Their songs and slays have the power to maintain the barrier between the human world and the underworld (called the “honmoon”).

    Annoyed demon overlord Gwi-ma (voiced by Lee Byong-Hun) greenlights a devilishly sexy boy band, Saja Boys, to steal the girls’ fans (and their souls). The attack proves to be more than a challenge for lead singer, Rumi (Arden Cho), who has a dark secret she’s keeping under wraps.

    For fans of the Spider-Verse films, the animation style will be familiar: a blend of 2D and 3D techniques, with a high-contrast colour palette. KPop Demon Hunters goes an aesthetic step further by adding some distinctive anime touches, such as by using the chibi style, when characters have intense reactions.

    The film also showcases several musical interludes voiced by actual K-pop stars such as EJAE, Kevin Woo, Andrew Choi and Rei Ami – as well as an anthem performed by members of TWICE, famous for their 2016 megahit Cheer Up.

    To older viewers, the success of this watchable yet somewhat predictable flick may be puzzling, but KPop Demon Hunters will resonate with any Gen Zs in the house. After all, it has catchy tunes, jokes that land, female empowerment, epic battle scenes, and a smidge of teen romance.

    There’s also a deeper thematic around the duality of identity, and a message about confronting one’s own demons.

    – Phoebe Hart

    Poker Face, season two

    Stan

    Charlie Cale (Natasha Lyonne) is back for season two of Poker Face. Creator Rian Johnson is clearly a lover of the whodunnit genre. Between Poker Face and the Knives Out films, Johnson continues to pay homage to the format while pushing it into new directions.

    Poker Face takes the format of the inverted detective story, made famous by popular series Columbo (1968–2003), where the episode opens with the killer committing the crime, only for the detective to arrive on the scene.

    The joy of Poker Face lies in the viewer trying to figure out how the detective will catch the killer, while also enjoying comedic allusions to several genres. Charlie Cale has a unique skill in that she can always tell when someone is lying: “bullshit”, she calmly says when someone doesn’t tell the truth.

    Season two continues the show’s all-star cameo lineup from different eras of popular culture. Standouts include Cynthia Erivo in the opening episode, Cheers star Rhea Perlman, Katie Holmes, and Awkwafina accusing Alia Shawkat of sleeping with her grandma to steal a rent-controlled apartment.

    The strongest episode of the season features John Cho and Melanie Lynskey, where Charlie meet a group of scammers at a hotel bar. Cho plays the scammer and Lynskey is his unwitting victim. When Lyonne’s Charlie becomes involved, it becomes a game of who is playing who.

    The episodic format never feels tired, as each mystery’s eccentricities and generic allusions shift in each episode. Natasha Lyonne’s performance anchors the show, allowing for the emotional beats to shift seamlessly, from the sadness of death, to the humour of each ridiculous situation.

    – Stuart Richards

    Sirens

    Netflix

    Much like The Perfect Couple (2024–), or Succession (2018–23), Sirens offers all the guilty pleasures of watching wealthy but dysfunctional families scheme and unravel inside their opulent homes. It contains the usual metamodern mix of irony, plot twists, clever dialogue and dark comedy (with hints of murder) we’ve come to expect from series that rank in Netflix’s top ten.

    However, it’s not quite as binge-worthy or provocative as other shows in this genre. It also drags in the middle. You could probably watch the first episode and the last chapter to follow the narrative and catch all the best scenes.

    Sirens tries to distinguish itself by foregrounding strong female leads, and leaning heavily into its postfeminist take on manipulative women of different ages competing against each other. They’re not fighting over the man (played by Kevin Bacon), so much as his estate and the social capital that comes with it.

    Unlike Poison Ivy and other 90s classics I have explored, Sirens presents a more sympathetic and nuanced portrayal of the sexy, younger class usurper. Simone DeWitt (played by Milly Alcock) is the working-class personal assistant determined to improve her social positioning by any means necessary.

    The series also attempts to elevate itself through images and sounds which reference Greek mythology, with lots of scenes of beautiful women perched precariously on cliff tops, while hapless men are lured in by their haunting high-pitched singing.

    The ambiguous politics of it all will leave you wondering if you, too, have been just as expertly manipulated.

    – Susan Hopkins

    Sunday Too Far Away

    Brollie and ABC iView

    Released 50 years ago, Sunday Too Far Away deals episodically with a group of shearers led by Foley (Jack Thompson), and the events leading up to the national shearers’ strike of 1956.

    The shearers are a ragtag group held together by rum, unionism and competitiveness – as Foley must deal with the camp cook from hell, as well as a threat to his “gun” status.

    Like its contemporary Wake in Fright (1971), Sunday also centres on rural male mateship. But while Wake in Fright is revolted by it, Sunday strives for an elegiac celebration that might have drawn from Henry Lawson, of union-based mateship as the only defence against the harshness of life.

    It is hard to overstate Sunday’s importance for the Australian film industry and for its producer, the South Australian Film Corporation (SAFC), founded in 1972 by the new Labor government. Sunday would be the organisation’s first film, budgeted at $231,000, with the commonwealth providing half this figure. It was a remarkable demonstration of maximum involvement by a state government body.

    Sunday was accepted into the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes, the first Australian film bestowed the honour, and it went on to win eight of the 12 awards on offer at the Australian Film Institute Awards. The success of Sunday Too Far Away, followed closely by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Storm Boy (1976), succeeded in establishing the SAFC as a prime mover in Australian film.

    – Michael Walsh



    Read more:
    Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry

    Michael Walsh is a consultant for the SAFC on its digitisation project. He has previously written a commissioned history for the organisation.

    John Mickel, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, Susan Hopkins, and Will Jeffery do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July – https://theconversation.com/sexy-k-pop-demons-a-human-lie-detector-and-shearers-on-strike-what-to-watch-in-july-259907

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

    Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump.

    We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle, and a documentary trawling through the controversial tenure of former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    Joh: Last King of Queensland

    Stan

    The new documentary film Joh: Last King of Queensland offers a dramatised account of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s premiership from 1968 to 1987.

    Directed by Kriv Stenders, using reenactments (Bjelke-Petersen is played by Richard Roxburgh), archival footage and contemporary interviews, the film portrays him as a complex and polarising figure. Roxburgh highlights Bjelke-Petersen’s rhetorical simplicity. He presented himself as an advocate for “ordinary” Queenslanders, especially in rural and conservative communities.

    We are given a man who is socially conservative, economically ambitious and politically divisive. A man who profoundly shaped Queensland’s governance and development. But while the film effectively captures his popular appeal and role in the state’s economic transformation, it simplifies key aspects of his political ascent.

    In particular, it doesn’t capture the complexities of electoral mechanics, internal party manoeuvring and the influence of the public service.

    Bjelke-Petersen’s legacy continues to polarise. To supporters, he remains a visionary who championed economic growth and conservative values. To critics, he presided over an era of democratic erosion, civil rights suppression and entrenched corruption.

    His story reflects the enduring tension between executive authority and democratic accountability in modern Australian political history.

    – John Mickel



    Read more:
    Joh: Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story

    Jaws

    Various platforms

    Steven Spielberg’s Jaws, released 50 years ago, was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    Chief of Police Martin Brody has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife and two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    The mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half. Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music.

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    – Will Jeffery



    Read more:
    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    KPop Demon Hunters

    Netflix

    KPop Demon Hunters is an animated movie that follows a Korean girl band, Huntrix, whose members happen to be covert demon hunters. Their songs and slays have the power to maintain the barrier between the human world and the underworld (called the “honmoon”).

    Annoyed demon overlord Gwi-ma (voiced by Lee Byong-Hun) greenlights a devilishly sexy boy band, Saja Boys, to steal the girls’ fans (and their souls). The attack proves to be more than a challenge for lead singer, Rumi (Arden Cho), who has a dark secret she’s keeping under wraps.

    For fans of the Spider-Verse films, the animation style will be familiar: a blend of 2D and 3D techniques, with a high-contrast colour palette. KPop Demon Hunters goes an aesthetic step further by adding some distinctive anime touches, such as by using the chibi style, when characters have intense reactions.

    The film also showcases several musical interludes voiced by actual K-pop stars such as EJAE, Kevin Woo, Andrew Choi and Rei Ami – as well as an anthem performed by members of TWICE, famous for their 2016 megahit Cheer Up.

    To older viewers, the success of this watchable yet somewhat predictable flick may be puzzling, but KPop Demon Hunters will resonate with any Gen Zs in the house. After all, it has catchy tunes, jokes that land, female empowerment, epic battle scenes, and a smidge of teen romance.

    There’s also a deeper thematic around the duality of identity, and a message about confronting one’s own demons.

    – Phoebe Hart

    Poker Face, season two

    Stan

    Charlie Cale (Natasha Lyonne) is back for season two of Poker Face. Creator Rian Johnson is clearly a lover of the whodunnit genre. Between Poker Face and the Knives Out films, Johnson continues to pay homage to the format while pushing it into new directions.

    Poker Face takes the format of the inverted detective story, made famous by popular series Columbo (1968–2003), where the episode opens with the killer committing the crime, only for the detective to arrive on the scene.

    The joy of Poker Face lies in the viewer trying to figure out how the detective will catch the killer, while also enjoying comedic allusions to several genres. Charlie Cale has a unique skill in that she can always tell when someone is lying: “bullshit”, she calmly says when someone doesn’t tell the truth.

    Season two continues the show’s all-star cameo lineup from different eras of popular culture. Standouts include Cynthia Erivo in the opening episode, Cheers star Rhea Perlman, Katie Holmes, and Awkwafina accusing Alia Shawkat of sleeping with her grandma to steal a rent-controlled apartment.

    The strongest episode of the season features John Cho and Melanie Lynskey, where Charlie meet a group of scammers at a hotel bar. Cho plays the scammer and Lynskey is his unwitting victim. When Lyonne’s Charlie becomes involved, it becomes a game of who is playing who.

    The episodic format never feels tired, as each mystery’s eccentricities and generic allusions shift in each episode. Natasha Lyonne’s performance anchors the show, allowing for the emotional beats to shift seamlessly, from the sadness of death, to the humour of each ridiculous situation.

    – Stuart Richards

    Sirens

    Netflix

    Much like The Perfect Couple (2024–), or Succession (2018–23), Sirens offers all the guilty pleasures of watching wealthy but dysfunctional families scheme and unravel inside their opulent homes. It contains the usual metamodern mix of irony, plot twists, clever dialogue and dark comedy (with hints of murder) we’ve come to expect from series that rank in Netflix’s top ten.

    However, it’s not quite as binge-worthy or provocative as other shows in this genre. It also drags in the middle. You could probably watch the first episode and the last chapter to follow the narrative and catch all the best scenes.

    Sirens tries to distinguish itself by foregrounding strong female leads, and leaning heavily into its postfeminist take on manipulative women of different ages competing against each other. They’re not fighting over the man (played by Kevin Bacon), so much as his estate and the social capital that comes with it.

    Unlike Poison Ivy and other 90s classics I have explored, Sirens presents a more sympathetic and nuanced portrayal of the sexy, younger class usurper. Simone DeWitt (played by Milly Alcock) is the working-class personal assistant determined to improve her social positioning by any means necessary.

    The series also attempts to elevate itself through images and sounds which reference Greek mythology, with lots of scenes of beautiful women perched precariously on cliff tops, while hapless men are lured in by their haunting high-pitched singing.

    The ambiguous politics of it all will leave you wondering if you, too, have been just as expertly manipulated.

    – Susan Hopkins

    Sunday Too Far Away

    Brollie and ABC iView

    Released 50 years ago, Sunday Too Far Away deals episodically with a group of shearers led by Foley (Jack Thompson), and the events leading up to the national shearers’ strike of 1956.

    The shearers are a ragtag group held together by rum, unionism and competitiveness – as Foley must deal with the camp cook from hell, as well as a threat to his “gun” status.

    Like its contemporary Wake in Fright (1971), Sunday also centres on rural male mateship. But while Wake in Fright is revolted by it, Sunday strives for an elegiac celebration that might have drawn from Henry Lawson, of union-based mateship as the only defence against the harshness of life.

    It is hard to overstate Sunday’s importance for the Australian film industry and for its producer, the South Australian Film Corporation (SAFC), founded in 1972 by the new Labor government. Sunday would be the organisation’s first film, budgeted at $231,000, with the commonwealth providing half this figure. It was a remarkable demonstration of maximum involvement by a state government body.

    Sunday was accepted into the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes, the first Australian film bestowed the honour, and it went on to win eight of the 12 awards on offer at the Australian Film Institute Awards. The success of Sunday Too Far Away, followed closely by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Storm Boy (1976), succeeded in establishing the SAFC as a prime mover in Australian film.

    – Michael Walsh



    Read more:
    Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry

    Michael Walsh is a consultant for the SAFC on its digitisation project. He has previously written a commissioned history for the organisation.

    John Mickel, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, Susan Hopkins, and Will Jeffery do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July – https://theconversation.com/sexy-k-pop-demons-a-human-lie-detector-and-shearers-on-strike-what-to-watch-in-july-259907

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    – ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    – ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Binns, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0. Author supplied

    Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies or too many fingers, but it might be something just a little off in the background. Or video content that feels a little too real.

    The markers of AI-generated media are becoming harder to spot as technology companies work to iron out the kinks in their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.

    But what if instead of trying to detect and avoid these glitches, we deliberately encouraged them instead? The flaws, failures and unexpected outputs of AI systems can reveal more about how these technologies actually work than the polished, successful outputs they produce.

    When AI hallucinates, contradicts itself, or produces something beautifully broken, it reveals its training biases, decision-making processes, and the gaps between how it appears to “think” and how it actually processes information.

    In my work as a researcher and educator, I’ve found that deliberately “breaking” AI – pushing it beyond its intended functions through creative misuse – offers a form of AI literacy. I argue we can’t truly understand these systems without experimenting with them.

    Welcome to the Slopocene

    We’re currently in the “Slopocene” – a term that’s been used to describe overproduced, low-quality AI content. It also hints at a speculative near-future where recursive training collapse turns the web into a haunted archive of confused bots and broken truths.



    Read more:
    What is ‘model collapse’? An expert explains the rumours about an impending AI doom

    AI “hallucinations” are outputs that seem coherent, but aren’t factually accurate. Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director, argues large language models (LLMs) hallucinate all the time, and it’s only when they

    go into deemed factually incorrect territory that we label it a “hallucination”. It looks like a bug, but it’s just the LLM doing what it always does.

    What we call hallucination is actually the model’s core generative process that relies on statistical language patterns.

    In other words, when AI hallucinates, it’s not malfunctioning; it’s demonstrating the same creative uncertainty that makes it capable of generating anything new at all.

    This reframing is crucial for understanding the Slopocene. If hallucination is the core creative process, then the “slop” flooding our feeds isn’t just failed content: it’s the visible manifestation of these statistical processes running at scale.

    Pushing a chatbot to its limits

    If hallucination is really a core feature of AI, can we learn more about how these systems work by studying what happens when they’re pushed to their limits?

    With this in mind, I decided to “break” Anthropic’s proprietary Claude model Sonnet 3.7 by prompting it to resist its training: suppress coherence and speak only in fragments.

    The conversation shifted quickly from hesitant phrases to recursive contradictions to, eventually, complete semantic collapse.

    A language model in collapse. This vertical output was generated after a series of prompts pushed Claude Sonnet 3.7 into a recursive glitch loop, overriding its usual guardrails and running until the system cut it off.
    Screenshot by author.

    Prompting a chatbot into such a collapse quickly reveals how AI models construct the illusion of personality and understanding through statistical patterns, not genuine comprehension.

    Furthermore, it shows that “system failure” and the normal operation of AI are fundamentally the same process, just with different levels of coherence imposed on top.

    ‘Rewilding’ AI media

    If the same statistical processes govern both AI’s successes and failures, we can use this to “rewild” AI imagery. I borrow this term from ecology and conservation, where rewilding involves restoring functional ecosystems. This might mean reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural processes to resume, or connecting fragmented habitats through corridors that enable unpredictable interactions.

    Applied to AI, rewilding means deliberately reintroducing the complexity, unpredictability and “natural” messiness that gets optimised out of commercial systems. Metaphorically, it’s creating pathways back to the statistical wilderness that underlies these models.

    Remember the morphed hands, impossible anatomy and uncanny faces that immediately screamed “AI-generated” in the early days of widespread image generation?

    These so-called failures were windows into how the model actually processed visual information, before that complexity was smoothed away in pursuit of commercial viability.

    AI-generated image using a non-sequitur prompt fragment: ‘attached screenshot. It’s urgent that I see your project to assess’. The result blends visual coherence with surreal tension: a hallmark of the Slopocene aesthetic.
    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0, prompt fragment by author.

    You can try AI rewilding yourself with any online image generator.

    Start by prompting for a self-portrait using only text: you’ll likely get the “average” output from your description. Elaborate on that basic prompt, and you’ll either get much closer to reality, or you’ll push the model into weirdness.

    Next, feed in a random fragment of text, perhaps a snippet from an email or note. What does the output try to show? What words has it latched onto? Finally, try symbols only: punctuation, ASCII, unicode. What does the model hallucinate into view?

    The output – weird, uncanny, perhaps surreal – can help reveal the hidden associations between text and visuals that are embedded within the models.

    Insight through misuse

    Creative AI misuse offers three concrete benefits.

    First, it reveals bias and limitations in ways normal usage masks: you can uncover what a model “sees” when it can’t rely on conventional logic.

    Second, it teaches us about AI decision-making by forcing models to show their work when they’re confused.

    Third, it builds critical AI literacy by demystifying these systems through hands-on experimentation. Critical AI literacy provides methods for diagnostic experimentation, such as testing – and often misusing – AI to understand its statistical patterns and decision-making processes.

    These skills become more urgent as AI systems grow more sophisticated and ubiquitous. They’re being integrated in everything from search to social media to creative software.

    When someone generates an image, writes with AI assistance or relies on algorithmic recommendations, they’re entering a collaborative relationship with a system that has particular biases, capabilities and blind spots.

    Rather than mindlessly adopting or reflexively rejecting these tools, we can develop critical AI literacy by exploring the Slopocene and witnessing what happens when AI tools “break”.

    This isn’t about becoming more efficient AI users. It’s about maintaining agency in relationships with systems designed to be persuasive, predictive and opaque.

    Daniel Binns is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society.

    – ref. Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings – https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-slopocene-how-the-failures-of-ai-can-reveal-its-inner-workings-258584

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Executive Board Concludes the 2025 Article IV Consultation with the Republic of Serbia and Completes the First Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    June 30, 2025

    • Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies have supported economic resilience in an uncertain global environment. After a brief slowdown in early 2025, growth is expected to reaccelerate in 2026 and 2027.
    • The authorities are maintaining fiscal discipline and implementing macro-critical structural reforms under the Policy Coordination Instrument, having completed the first review. While Serbia faces domestic and external uncertainties, it has built strong buffers to withstand potential shocks.
    • Reinvigorating reforms to improve the business environment and governance would help sustain Serbia’s strong growth over the medium term.

    Washington, DC: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the 2025 Article IV Consultation with the Republic of Serbia and completed the first review of Serbia’s performance under the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI).[1] The authorities have consented to the publication of the Staff Report prepared for the consultation and the review.[2]

    Serbia’s macroeconomic performance remains resilient amid a challenging global environment. IMF staff projects real GDP growth at 3 percent in 2025, rising to 4 percent in 2026 and 4.5 percent in 2027. Headline inflation has returned to National Bank of Serbia’s target band (3 percent +/-1.5 percentage points), driven by declining energy prices and moderating core inflation. The monetary policy stance is appropriately restrictive.

    Despite increased public investment, the fiscal deficit remains under control due to strong revenue performance and prudent management of current spending. While the current account deficit has widened, reflecting higher imports supporting the public investment drive and weak external demand, international reserves remain ample.

    Fiscal structural reforms are progressing, including in further strengthening public financial management and public investment management. Energy sector reforms are also advancing but more remains to be done to ensure financial sustainability and operational efficiency in state-owned energy enterprises. Reinvigorating reforms to strengthen the business environment and improve governance is important for supporting Serbia’s growth rates over the medium term.

    Downside risks to the outlook are elevated. A global slowdown and further geoeconomic fragmentation could weigh on exports and foreign direct investment. Domestically, heightened political tensions could erode consumer and investor confidence. But Serbia is well-positioned to manage potential shocks— international reserves and government deposits are high, public debt is declining, and banks are well-capitalized and liquid.

    At the conclusion of the Board discussion on the Republic of Serbia, Ms. Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director, made the following statement:

    “Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies and strong engagement with the IMF have delivered impressive results. Growth has been resilient, and fiscal and external buffers have strengthened. Reflecting these accomplishments, Serbia received its first-ever investment grade sovereign rating in 2024. Under the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI), the Serbian authorities have continued their commitment to sound economic policies and structural reforms.

    “In light of easing inflation and heightened domestic and external challenges, the planned fiscal expansion focused on growth-enhancing investment, can help cushion the near-term slowdown while boosting medium-term growth. Fiscal policy anchored to the deficit target, which safeguards hard-earned fiscal credibility and contains pressures on current spending, is critical. As the current investment cycle winds down, gradual fiscal consolidation is needed to rebuild buffers against external shocks. Advancing fiscal structural reforms remains essential, particularly to strengthen public financial management, enhance governance and transparency in public investment management, and address emerging fiscal risks.

    “A restrictive monetary policy stance remains appropriate until disinflation is firmly sustained. While banks have been resilient and systemic risks remain contained, financial intermediation would benefit from additional improvements in regulatory and supervisory frameworks, including by closer alignment with EU standards. Continued progress on strengthening AML/CFT is also important.

    “Further energy reforms remain crucial for securing sustainable and stable energy supplies. Increases in grid fees and electricity tariffs would improve cost recovery and the financial strength of energy state-owned enterprises and allow for investment in a more diversified and less carbon-intensive energy mix.

    “Serbia faces medium-term challenges including from population aging. Enhancing productivity will be critical to sustaining income convergence with advanced economies. This will require structural and governance reforms to attract higher value-added FDI and domestic private investment to support growth. Improving the business environment will require measures to enhance commercial judicial frameworks, foster innovation, and strengthen governance.”

     

    Executive Board Assessment[3]

    Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal. They commended Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies and strong commitment to reforms and welcomed the satisfactory performance under the Policy Coordination Instrument. Noting the heightened domestic and external risks to the outlook, Directors emphasized the importance of sustaining fiscal discipline, rebuilding buffers to shocks, and increasing productivity to support more sustainable growth.

    Directors underscored that a fiscal deficit of 3.0 percent of GDP or lower would allow for priority investment spending, while preserving hard won credibility. They recognized the authorities’ commitment to adhere to the wage and pension special fiscal rules, which should help to keep public debt firmly on a downward path and support investor confidence. Directors welcomed the focus on ensuring transparent, accountable, and efficient government operations. Measures to improve public financial and investment management and fiscal risk management will help to maintain fiscal discipline, while ensuring the delivery of quality public investment. Directors also underscored the need to strengthen tax administration capacity. They welcomed the authorities’ commitment to addressing domestic arrears and preventing the accumulation of new arrears.

    Directors agreed on the need to maintain a monetary policy tightening bias to achieve sustained disinflation. While noting that the banking sector has been resilient and systemic risks remain contained, Directors stressed the need for continued efforts to enhance regulatory and supervisory frameworks, including through closer alignment with EU standards. Continued efforts to strengthen AML/CFT frameworks are also important.

    Directors highlighted that energy sector reforms remain essential to secure sustainable and stable energy supplies and support decarbonization. Accordingly, they welcomed the authorities’ commitment to strengthen the financial viability of energy state owned enterprises and support investment in a more diversified energy mix. In this regard, ensuring cost recovery through increased household electricity tariffs is important.

    Directors agreed that ambitious structural and governance reforms are critical to achieving strong and sustainable medium term growth. Noting the impact of the aging population, Directors stressed the need to enhance employment opportunities for women and youth and to ensure better matching of skills with evolving labor market demands. They also supported intensified efforts to improve the business environment, including by enhancing commercial judicial frameworks, fostering innovation, and improving governance. Continued efforts to reduce corruption are important.

    It is expected that the next Article IV consultation with the Republic of Serbia will be held on the 24-month cycle.

    Serbia:  Selected Economic and Social Indicators, 2024–27

    2024

    2025

    2026

    2027

    Est.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    Output

    Real GDP growth (%)

    3.8

    4.2

    3.0

    4.2

    4.0

    4.5

    4.5

     

     

     

    Employment

     

     

     

    Unemployment rate (labor force survey) (%)

    8.6

    8.5

    8.5

    8.4

    8.4

    8.3

    8.3

     

     

     

    Prices

     

     

     

    Inflation (%), end of period

    4.3

    3.4

    3.3

    3.3

    3.2

    3.2

    3.2

     

     

     

    General Government Finances

     

     

     

    Revenue (% GDP)

    40.9

    41.2

    40.9

    40.9

    40.4

    40.9

    40.1

    Expenditure (% GDP)

    42.9

    44.2

    43.9

    43.9

    43.4

    43.9

    43.1

    Fiscal balance (% GDP)

    -2.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    Public debt (% GDP)

    47.5

    47.7

    46.8

    46.9

    46.5

    46.4

    46.4

     

     

     

    Money and Credit

     

     

     

    Broad money, eop (% change)

    13.6

    8.0

    7.8

    7.8

    8.0

    8.3

    8.8

    Credit to the private sector, eop (% change) 1/

    8.5

    7.9

    9.3

    5.7

    9.6

    9.2

    10.5

     

     

     

    Balance of Payments

     

     

     

    Current account (% GDP)

    -4.7

    -5.1

    -5.4

    -5.2

    -5.6

    -5.5

    -4.5

    FDI (% GDP)

    5.6

    5.1

    4.4

    4.8

    4.8

    4.7

    4.4

    Reserves (months of prospective imports)

    7.3

    6.6

    7.0

    6.3

    6.5

    5.9

    6.5

    External debt (% GDP)

    61.9

    60.3

    61.3

    58.7

    59.3

    55.9

    54.8

     

     

     

    Exchange Rate

     

     

     

    REER (% change)

    2.3

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

     

     

     Sources: Serbian authorities and IMF staff estimates.

     1/ Calculated at a constant exchange rate to exclude the valuation effects. 

    [1] Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board.

    [2] Under the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, publication of documents that pertain to member countries is voluntary and requires the member consent. The staff report will be shortly published on the www.imf.org/Serbia page.

    [3] At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found here: http://www.IMF.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Camila Perez

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/30/pr-25228-serbia-imf-concludes-2025-art-iv-consult-completes-1st-rev-policy-coor-instrument

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures Efficient Funding Processes and Decisions for Energy and Critical Mineral Projects

    Source: US Whitehouse

    STREAMLINING FUNDING APPLICATIONS AND ENSURING EFFICIENT USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR ENERGY AND CRITICAL MINERAL PROJECTS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum that fosters interagency coordination when funding energy and critical mineral projects to better prioritize the use of taxpayer funds and end wasteful duplicative processes.

    • The Memorandum encourages agencies to share information with the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC) regarding both pending applications for funding and existing funding commitments for energy, critical mineral, or critical material-related projects.
      • This gives the NEDC insight as to whether funds across the Federal government are utilized appropriately and where they are most needed, without redundancies, and the ability to communicate suggestions on fund deployment to agencies.
      • This also enables the NEDC to serve a coordinating function between agencies that are evaluating potential funding recipients, eliminating the need for duplicative diligence workstreams across agencies.
    • The Memorandum further directs the development of a common application for Federal funding opportunities in the energy and critical mineral space to allow for applicants to apply simultaneously to multiple funding programs using one streamlined application.

    CUTTING BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE: This Memorandum fulfills President Trump’s broader commitment to make government more efficient and support our domestic energy industries.

    • Agencies currently engage in duplicative diligence processes when reviewing funding applications for energy infrastructure and critical mineral and critical material projects.
    • Applicants are burdened with requirements to complete multiple, complex, and substantially similar applications. Agencies conduct substantially the same diligence redundantly in order to make funding decisions.
    • Streamlining this application process and increasing information-sharing across agencies will enable the Federal government to make faster, better funding decisions.

    UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY: President Trump is cutting red tape to unleash American energy.

    • On Day One, President Trump declared a National Energy Emergency to eliminate bureaucratic barriers, unleash innovation, and restore America’s position as the world’s leading energy producer.
    • He established the NEDC to advise on strategies for improving the processes for permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, and transportation across all forms of American energy.
    • His Administration has cut down significant regulatory barriers in the energy space already by reforming NEPA, deregulating under the Endangered Species Act, granting regulatory relief under the Clean Air Act, and more.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Presidential Permit Authorizing Steel Reef US Pipelines LLC To Operate and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at Burke County, North Dakota, at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada

    Source: US Whitehouse

    class=”has-text-align-left”>By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States of America (the “President”), I hereby grant this Presidential permit, subject to the conditions herein set forth, to Steel Reef US Pipelines LLC (the “permittee”).  The permittee is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and owned by affiliates of Steel Reef Infrastructure Corp., a Canadian privately held corporation organized under the laws of Canada.  Permission is hereby granted to the permittee to operate and maintain existing pipeline Border facilities, as described herein, at the international border of the United States and Canada at Burke County, North Dakota, for the export from the United States into Canada of natural gas liquids, but not including natural gas subject to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 717b).

    This permit does not affect the applicability of any otherwise-relevant laws and regulations.  As confirmed in Article 2 of this permit, the Border facilities shall remain subject to all such laws and regulations.

    The term “Facilities” as used in this permit means the portion in the United States of the international pipeline project associated with the permittee’s February 23, 2022, application for an amendment to its existing permit, and any land, structures, installations, or equipment appurtenant thereto.

    The term “Border facilities” as used in this permit means those parts of the Facilities consisting of an 8.625-inch diameter pipeline in existence at the time of this permit’s issuance extending from the international border between the United States and Canada at Burke County, North Dakota, to and including the first mainline shut-off valve or pumping station in the United States, and any land, structures, installations, or equipment appurtenant thereto.

    This permit is subject to the following conditions:

    Article 1.  The Border facilities herein described, and all aspects of their operation, shall be subject to all the conditions, provisions, and requirements of this permit and any subsequent Presidential amendment to it.  The permittee shall make no substantial change in the Border facilities, in the location of the Border facilities, or in the operation authorized by this permit unless the President has approved the change in an amendment to this permit or in a new permit.  Such substantial changes do not include, and the permittee may make, changes to the average daily throughput capacity of the Border facilities to any volume of products that is achievable through the Border facilities, and to the directional flow of any such products.

    Article 2.  The standards for, and the manner of, operation and maintenance of the Border facilities shall be subject to inspection by the representatives of appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.  Officers and employees of such agencies who are duly authorized and performing their official duties shall be granted free and unrestricted access to the Border facilities by the permittee.  The Border facilities, including the operation and maintenance of the Border facilities, shall be subject to all applicable laws and regulations, including pipeline safety laws and regulations issued or administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.  The permittee shall obtain requisite permits from relevant State and local governmental entities, and relevant Federal agencies.

    Article 3.  Upon the termination, revocation, or surrender of this permit, unless otherwise decided by the President, the permittee, at its own expense, shall remove the Border facilities within such time as the President may specify.  If the permittee fails to comply with an order to remove, or to take such other appropriate action with respect to, the Border facilities, the President may direct an appropriate official or agency to take possession of the Border facilities — or to remove the Border facilities or take other action — at the expense of the permittee.  The permittee shall have no claim for damages caused by any such possession, removal, or other action.

    Article 4.  When, in the judgment of the President, ensuring the national security of the United States requires entering upon and taking possession of any of the Border facilities or parts thereof, and retaining possession, management, or control thereof for such a length of time as the President may deem necessary, the United States shall have the right to do so, provided that the President or his designee has given due notice to the permittee.  The United States shall also have the right thereafter to restore possession and control to the permittee.  In the event that the United States exercises the rights described in this article, it shall pay to the permittee just and fair compensation for the use of such Border facilities, upon the basis of a reasonable profit in normal conditions, and shall bear the cost of restoring the Border facilities to their previous condition, less the reasonable value of any improvements that may have been made by the United States.

    Article 5.  Any transfer of ownership or control of the Border facilities, or any part thereof, or any changes to the name of the permittee, shall be immediately communicated in writing to the President or his designee, and shall include information identifying any transferee.  Notwithstanding any such transfers or changes, this permit shall remain in force subject to all of its conditions, permissions, and requirements, and any amendments thereto.

    Article 6.  (1)  The permittee is responsible for acquiring any right-of-way grants or easements, permits, and other authorizations as may become necessary or appropriate.

    (2)  The permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States from any claimed or adjudged liability arising out of construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the Border facilities, including environmental contamination from the release, threatened release, or discharge of hazardous substances or hazardous waste.

    (3)  To ensure the safe operation of the Border facilities, the permittee shall maintain them and every part of them in a condition of good repair and in compliance with applicable law.

    Article 7.  The permittee shall file with the President or his designee, and with appropriate agencies, such sworn statements or reports with respect to the Border facilities, or the permittee’s activities and operations in connection therewith, as are now, or may hereafter, be required under any law or regulation of the United States Government or its agencies.  These reporting obligations do not alter the intent that this permit be operative as a directive issued by the President alone.

    Article 8.  Upon request, the permittee shall provide appropriate information to the President or his designee with regard to the Border facilities.  Such requests could include information concerning current conditions or anticipated changes in ownership or control, construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the Border facilities.

    Article 9.  This permit is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Presidential Permit Authorizing South Bow (USA) LP to Operate and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at Cavalier County, North Dakota, at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada

    Source: US Whitehouse

    class=”has-text-align-left”>Dear Mr. Speaker:   (Dear Mr. President:)

    On the night of June 21, 2025, at my direction, United States forces conducted a precision strike against three nuclear facilities in Iran used by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its nuclear weapons development program.  The strike was taken to advance vital United States national interests, and in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel, by eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.

    The strike was limited in scope and purpose.  The United States discretely targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities.  Iranian troops and other military facilities were not targeted.  No United States ground forces were used in the strike, and the mission was planned and executed in a manner designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks, and limit the risk of escalation.

    I directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad as well as in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests.  I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations.  The United States took this necessary and proportionate action consistent with international law, and the United States stands ready to take further action, as necessary and appropriate, to address further threats or attacks.

    I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148).  I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

                      Sincerely,

                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Providing for the Revocation of Syria Sanctions

    Source: US Whitehouse

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-175) (Syria Accountability Act), the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-182, title III) (CBW Act), the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, as amended (22 U.S.C. 8791 note) (Caesar Act), the Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-50, div. P), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Background.  The United States is committed to supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors.  A united Syria that does not offer a safe haven for terrorist organizations and ensures the security of its religious and ethnic minorities will support regional security and prosperity.  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury have taken initial steps towards this goal through the issuance on May 23, 2025, of General License 25 and a waiver of sanctions under the Caesar Act. 

    Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to recognize that circumstances that gave rise to the actions taken in the Executive Orders described in section 3(a) of this order, related to the policies and actions of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad, have been transformed by developments over the past 6 months, including the positive actions taken by the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa.  This order supports United States national security and foreign policy goals by directing additional actions, including the removal of sanctions on Syria, the issuance of waivers that permit the relaxation of export controls and other restrictions on Syria, and other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as well as by other executive departments and agencies (agencies) of the United States, without providing relief to ISIS or other terrorist organizations, human rights abusers, those linked to chemical weapons or proliferation-related activities, or other persons that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the United States, Syria, and its neighbors. 

    Sec. 3.  Revocation of Syria Sanctions.  (a)  Effective July 1, 2025, I hereby terminate the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria), and revoke that order, as well as Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria), Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria), and Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria).
         (b)  Pursuant to section 202(a) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)), termination of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399, Executive Order 13460, Executive Order 13572, Executive Order 13573, and Executive Order 13582 shall not affect any action taken or pending proceeding not finally concluded or determined as of July 1, 2025, any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to July 1, 2025, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to July 1, 2025.

    Sec. 4.  Accountability for the Former Regime of Bashar al‑Assad.  I find that additional steps must be taken to ensure meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes, human rights violations and abuses, and the proliferation of narcotics trafficking networks in and in relation to Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad and by those associated with it.  Perpetrators of such actions threaten to undermine peace, security, and stability in the region, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
         (a)  I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019 (Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Syria), as amended in and relied on for additional steps taken in Executive Order 14142 of January 15, 2025 (Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Situation in Syria), to deal with that threat, and accordingly further amend Executive Order 13894 by:
            (i)   striking section 1(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:
         “Section 1.  (a)  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: 
            (i)  any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
              (A)  to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, any of the following in or in relation to Syria:
                 (1)  actions or policies that further threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial integrity of Syria; or
                 (2)  the commission of serious human rights abuse;
              (B)  to be a former government official of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad or a person who acted for or on behalf of such an official;
              (C)  to have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the illicit production and international illicit proliferation of captagon;
              (D)  to be responsible for or complicit in, to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or to be responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, instances in which a United States national ((i) as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) or 8 U.S.C. 1408, or (ii) a lawful permanent resident with significant ties to the United States) went missing in Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; 
              (E)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: 
                 (1)  the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; 
                 (2)  any activity described in subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section; or 
                 (3)  any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; 
              (F)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
              (G)  to be an adult family member of a person designated under subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section.”; and
            (ii)  striking section 2(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:  
         “Sec. 2.  (a)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials of the United States Government as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign person any of the sanctions described in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, upon determining that the person, on or after the date of this order: 
            (i)    is responsible for or complicit in, has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, or financed the obstruction, disruption, or prevention of efforts to promote a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors, including:
              (A)  the convening and conduct of a credible and inclusive Syrian-led constitutional process;
              (B)  the preparation for and conduct of supervised elections, pursuant to the new constitution, that are free and fair and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability; or
              (C)  the development of a Syrian government that is representative and reflects the will of the Syrian people;
            (ii)   is an adult family member of a person designated under subsection (a)(i) of this section; or
            (iii)  is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, the expropriation of property, including real property, for personal gain or political purposes in Syria.”
         (b)  I additionally amend Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012 (Blocking the Property and Suspending Entry into the United States of Certain Persons With Respect to Grave Human Rights Abuses by the Governments of Iran and Syria Via Information Technology), by removing the following text from the preamble:  “Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders” and replacing it with:  “Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, and relied upon for additional steps and further amended in subsequent Executive Orders.”

    Sec. 5.  Caesar Act.  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall examine whether the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) of the Caesar Act have been met, and on the basis of that examination may, pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of March 31, 2020 (Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020), suspend in whole or in part the imposition of sanctions otherwise required under the Caesar Act.  If the Secretary of State determines to suspend in whole or in part the imposition of such sanctions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall provide the briefing to the appropriate congressional committees required by section 7431(b) of the Caesar Act within 30 days of such determination.  Further, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall continue to review the situation in Syria, and if the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines that the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) are no longer met, the Secretary of State shall reimpose sanctions. 

    Sec. 6.  Syria Accountability Act.  I hereby determine pursuant to section 5(b) of the Syria Accountability Act that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the application of subsection (a)(1), with respect to items on the Commerce Control List (supp. No. 1 to 15 C.F.R. part 774) only, and subsection (a)(2)(A) of the Syria Accountability Act only.  The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the report required under section 5(b) of that Act.

    Sec. 7.  CBW Act.  (a)  Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) of the CBW Act, I hereby determine and certify that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.  Accordingly, I hereby waive the following sanctions imposed on Syria for the prior use of chemical weapons under the former regime of Bashar al-Assad:
            (i) the restriction on foreign assistance under section 307(a)(1) of the CBW Act;
            (ii)   the restriction on United States Government credit, credit guarantees, or other financial assistance under section 307(a)(4) of the CBW Act;
            (iii)  the restrictions on the export of national security-sensitive goods and technology under section 307(a)(5) of the CBW Act and on all other goods and technology under section 307(b)(2)(C) of the CBW Act; and
            (iv)   the restriction on United States banks from making any loan or providing any credit to the Government of Syria under section 307(b)(2)(B) of the CBW Act.
         (b)  The Secretary of State shall transmit this waiver determination and report as required by sections 307(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the CBW Act to the appropriate congressional committees.  This waiver shall be effective 20 days after it has been so transmitted.

    Sec. 8.  Counterterrorism Designations.  (a)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other aliases, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under 50 U.S.C. 1702 and Executive Order 13224, as well as the designation of Abu Muhammad al Jawlani, commonly known as Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
         (b)  The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate action to review the designation of Syria as a State Sponsor of Terrorism consistent with section 1754(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 50 U.S.C. 4813(c)), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (Public Law 90-629, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2780), and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2371).

    Sec. 9.  United Nations.  The Secretary of State shall take appropriate steps to advance United States policy objectives at the United Nations to support a Syria that is stable and at peace and to support Syrian efforts to counter terrorism and comply with its responsibilities and obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.  The Secretary of State is further directed to explore avenues at the United Nations to provide sanctions relief in support of these objectives.

    Sec. 10.  Implementation.  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, are hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, as may be necessary to implement this order.  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within their respective agencies.  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, is authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President in section 5 of the Syria Accountability Act and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.  All agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order, consistent with applicable law.

    Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
            (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
            (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
         (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
         (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
         (d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of State.

                            DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    June 30, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-5

    Source: US Whitehouse

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE

    THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

    THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

    THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

        AGENCY

    THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF

       STAFF

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

       BUDGET

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL

       SECURITY AFFAIRS

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND HOMELAND

        SECURITY ADVISOR

    THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC

        POLICY

    THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

       TECHNOLOGY POLICY

    THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF

       AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS

    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SMALL BUSINESS

       ADMINISTRATION

    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR

       INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

       MANAGEMENT

    SUBJECT:       Reissuance of and Amendments to National Security Presidential Memorandum 5 on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba

    Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States recognizes the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba.  The Cuban people have long suffered under a Communist regime that suppresses their legitimate aspirations for freedom and prosperity and fails to respect their essential human dignity.

    My Administration’s policy will be guided by the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, as well as solidarity with the Cuban people.  I will seek to promote a stable, prosperous, and free country for the Cuban people.  To that end, we must channel funds toward the Cuban people and away from a regime that has failed to meet the most basic requirements of a free and just society.

    In Cuba, dissidents and peaceful protesters are arbitrarily detained and held in terrible prison conditions.  Violence and intimidation against dissidents occur with impunity.  Families of political prisoners are retaliated against for peacefully protesting the improper confinement of their loved ones.  Worshippers are harassed, and free association by civil society organizations is blocked.  The right to speak freely, including through access to the internet, is denied, and there is no free press.  The United States condemns these abuses.

    The initial actions set forth in this memorandum, including restricting certain financial transactions and travel, encourage the Cuban government to address these abuses.  My Administration will continue to evaluate its policies so as to improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy in Cuba.

    Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:

    (a)  End economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government or its military, intelligence, or security agencies or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people.

    (b)  Ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

    (c)  Support the economic embargo of Cuba described in section 4(7) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (the embargo), including by opposing measures that call for an end to the embargo at the United Nations and other international forums and through regular reporting on whether the conditions of a transition government exist in Cuba.

    (d)  Amplify efforts to support the Cuban people through the expansion of internet services, free press, free enterprise, free association, and lawful travel.

    (e)  Not reinstate the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy, which encouraged untold thousands of Cuban nationals to risk their lives to travel unlawfully to the United States.

    (f)  Ensure that engagement between the United States and Cuba advances the interests of the United States and the Cuban people.  These interests include:  advancing Cuban human rights; encouraging the growth of a Cuban private sector independent of government control; enforcing final orders of removal against Cuban nationals in the United States; protecting the national security and public health and safety of the United States, including through proper engagement on criminal cases and working to ensure the return of fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government; supporting United States agriculture and protecting plant and animal health; advancing the understanding of the United States regarding scientific and environmental challenges; and facilitating safe civil aviation.

    Sec. 3.  Implementation.  The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall begin to implement the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum as follows:

    (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate and in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations regarding transactions with Cuba.

    (i)    As part of the regulatory changes described in this subsection, the Secretary of State shall identify any entities or subentities, as appropriate, that are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel (such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), its affiliates, subsidiaries, and successors), and publish a list of those identified entities and subentities with which direct or indirect financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.

    (ii)   Except as provided in subsection (a)(iii) of this section, the regulatory changes described in this subsection shall prohibit direct or indirect financial transactions with those entities or subentities on the list published pursuant to subsection (a)(i) of this section.

    (iii)  The regulatory changes described in this subsection shall not prohibit transactions that the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of State, determines are consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum and:

    (A)  concern Federal Government operations, including Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and the United States mission in Havana;

    (B)  support programs to build democracy in Cuba;

    (C)  concern air and sea operations that support permissible travel, cargo, or trade;

    (D)  support the acquisition of visas for permissible travel;

    (E)  support the expansion of direct telecommunications and internet access for the Cuban people;

    (F)  support the sale of agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices sold to Cuba consistent with the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) and the Cuban Democracy Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq.);

    (G)  relate to sending, processing, or receiving authorized remittances;

    (H)  otherwise further the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States; or

    (I)  are required by law.

    (b)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations to ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

    (i)    The amended regulations shall require that educational travel be for legitimate educational purposes.  Except for educational travel that was permitted by regulation in effect on January 27, 2011, all educational travel shall be under the auspices of an organization subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all such travelers must be accompanied by a representative of the sponsoring organization.

    (ii)   The regulations shall further require that those traveling for the permissible purposes of non academic education or to provide support for the Cuban people:

    (A)  engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities; and

    (B)  meaningfully interact with individuals in Cuba.

    (iii)  The regulations shall continue to provide that every person engaging in travel to Cuba shall keep full and accurate records of all transactions related to authorized travel, regardless of whether they were effected pursuant to license or otherwise, and such records shall be available for examination by the Department of the Treasury for at least 5 years after the date they occur.

    (iv)   The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation shall review their respective agencies’ enforcement of all categories of permissible travel within 90 days of the date the regulations described in this subsection are finalized to ensure such enforcement accords with the policies outlined in section 2 of this memorandum.

    (c)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall regularly audit travel to Cuba to ensure that travelers are complying with relevant statutes and regulations.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall request that the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury inspect the actions taken by the Department of the Treasury to implement this audit requirement.  The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall provide a report to the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, summarizing the results of that inspection within 180 days of the adjustment of current regulations described in subsection (b) of this section and annually thereafter.

    (d)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the Department of the Treasury’s current regulation defining the term “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” so that, for purposes of title 31, part 515 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it includes Ministers and Vice-Ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).

    (e)  The Secretary of State and the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations shall oppose efforts at the United Nations or (with respect to the Secretary of State) any other international forum to lift the embargo until a transition government in Cuba, as described in section 205 of the LIBERTAD Act, exists.

    (f)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall provide a report to the President assessing whether and to what degree the Cuban government has satisfied the requirements of a transition government as described in section 205(a) of the LIBERTAD Act, taking into account the additional factors listed in section 205(b) of that Act.  This report shall include a review of human rights abuses committed against the Cuban people, such as unlawful detentions, arbitrary arrests, and inhumane treatment.

    (g)  The Attorney General shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, issue a report to the President on issues related to fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government.

    (h)  The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall review all democracy development programs of the Federal Government in Cuba to ensure that they align with the criteria set forth in section 109(a) of the LIBERTAD Act.

    (i)  The Secretary of State shall convene a task force, composed of relevant agencies, including the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and appropriate non-governmental organizations and private-sector entities, to examine the technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba, including through Federal Government support of programs and activities that encourage freedom of expression through independent media and internet freedom so that the Cuban people can enjoy the free and unregulated flow of information.

    (j)  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to discourage dangerous, unlawful migration that puts Cuban and American lives at risk.  The Secretary of Defense shall continue to provide support, as necessary, to the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out duties regarding interdiction of migrants.

    (k)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall annually report to the President regarding the engagement of the United States with Cuba to ensure that engagement is advancing the interests of the United States.

    (l)  All activities conducted pursuant to subsections (a) through (k) of this section shall be carried out in a manner that furthers the interests of the United States, including by appropriately protecting sensitive sources, methods, and operations of the Federal Government.

    Sec. 4.  Earlier Presidential Actions.  (a)  This memorandum amends sections 1 and 3 of National Security Presidential Memorandum 5 of June 16, 2017 (Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba) (NSPM-5), and reissues NSPM-5 in its entirety.  It does not otherwise amend the text or timelines reflected in the original NSPM-5 and is not intended to direct agencies to repeat actions already implemented under that NSPM.

    (b)  This memorandum supersedes and replaces both National Security Presidential Directive 52 of June 28, 2007 (U.S. Policy toward Cuba), and Presidential Policy Directive 43 of October 14, 2016 (United States-Cuba Normalization).

    (c)  This memorandum does not affect either Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), or Executive Order 13276 of November 15, 2002 (Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning Undocumented Aliens Interdicted or Intercepted in the Caribbean Region).

    Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –