(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Ned Lamont released the following statement on the Congressional Republicans’ budget bill:
“Last night, Congress showed how much they prioritize well-connected billionaires over middle-class families by slashing healthcare and food assistance for the most vulnerable. Congress should be working on a budget that strengthens our nation and lowers costs, but instead, the bill passed by House Republicans overnight does the exact opposite – it explodes the national debt and imposes deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance that will devastate millions of Americans, including thousands of Connecticut families.
“While claiming to ease the burden on working families, Washington Republicans are pushing a plan that does just the opposite – driving up out-of-pocket healthcare costs and threatening access to critical services. Their proposal puts hospitals and nursing homes in jeopardy and strips away food assistance from those who need it most, including children, seniors, and veterans, at a time when everyday Americans are already stretched thin.”
In the world of high school athletics, athletic trainers are often the unsung heroes, steadfast, skilled, and always ready. But for Kyia Barnett, athletic trainer with the UConn Institute of Sports Medicine a recent evening at Bloomfield High School turned into a moment of true heroism.
On a Monday evening, shortly after 7 p.m., Kyia was wrapping up a long day in her office after a late practice when she received a frantic call from one of the track and field coaches. The message was urgent, 911 had just been called, and she was needed at the track immediately.
Without hesitation, Kyia grabbed her medical bag and AED and sprinted to the scene. When she arrived, she found two adult men: one lying unresponsive on the track, the other kneeling beside him in distress. Kyia quickly assessed the situation and, finding no pulse, immediately initiated CPR.
“When you get a frantic call like that for a medical emergency, the only thing in the moment for me is to blank out everything else around me and zone in on the situation and do what needs to be done,” said Barnett. “It’s almost like second nature to hyperfocus in emergencies. At the same time, as soon as I assessed the situation of the collapsed individual with no pulse, it’s shocking. In our line of work, it’s uncommon to deal with cardiac arrest, and we also hope to never see it even though we have been intensely trained and prepared for it since day one.”
Barnett performed four to five rounds of chest compressions before EMS arrived on the scene. Thanks to her rapid and skilled intervention, paramedics were able to regain a pulse and transport the patient to a local hospital for further treatment and is now recovering.
“Kyia’s swift action and clinical expertise were instrumental in saving a life that night. Her calm under pressure, unwavering focus, and precise execution are the very embodiment of what it means to be an athletic trainer,” said Christopher Watkins, director of ambulatory services for Storrs, Willimantic, and Putnam.
Justin Bolton, Athletic Trainer, Kyia Barnett and Carin Dulin, Athletic Trainer, Clinical Practice Manager celebrate Kyia’s award from CATA.
Barnett was recently honored with the Connecticut Athletic Trainers’ Association (CATA) President’s Award, a special recognition presented at the discretion of the CATA Executive Council to acknowledge excellence in the practice of Athletic Training.
“There is no question that Kyia exemplifies this excellence every day, and on that evening, she went far beyond the call of duty,” says Anne Horbatuck, Vice President, Ambulatory Services and Chief Operating Officer, UConn Medical Group.
“It is a blessing and honor to receive this award, not only for me and my own successes, but to bring attention to other athletic trainers’. Our skills, responsiveness, and assets are extremely vital to athletic departments, as well as communities,” says Barnett. “I’m thankful that I was in the right place at the right time in this situation, and that my many years of experience and training, alongside my attentiveness, aided me in saving this man’s life.”
This event also speaks volumes about the trust and strong relationships Barnett has built with the Bloomfield High School coaching staff. In the most critical moment, their first call after 911 wasn’t to a supervisor or colleague, it was to Barnett
“It’s an honor, truly to be an athletic trainer. We are not only the medical backbone to athletic teams, but we are also a shoulder to cry on for athletes (and coaches), a safe space for them, and even the comical output to brighten one’s bad day,” says Barnett. “Somedays, we are simply just cheering on our athletes at games after rehabbing athletes back to their sport, others we may be in the situation where another’s lives are in our hands. I’ve put so much hard work, education, dedication, love, and compassion into being an Athletic Trainer, and I would not trade it for the world.”
ATLANTA (May 22, 2025)—Lt. Gov. Burt Jones has appointed Sen. Chuck Payne (R–Dalton) to serve on the following committees and commissions:
Career and Technical Education Advisory Commission (Co-Chairperson)
Education Commission of the States
Georgia Commission on Civics Education
High School Athletics Overview Committee
Joint Georgia Hall of Fame Authority Overview Committee
Joint Recreational Authorities Overview Committee
Southern States Energy Board
Sen. Chuck Payne spoke on the appointments, saying, “I’m grateful to Lt. Governor Burt Jones for these appointments and for his trust in me to serve. Promoting education, advancing student athletics and supporting Georgia’s parks and recreational spaces are issues I look forward to seeing reflected through these committees and commissions. These are areas where thoughtful policy can make a difference in people’s lives, and I’m honored to continue this important work on behalf of my district and the people of Georgia.”
Each appointment is effective immediately and will extend for two years, aligning with the remainder of Sen. Payne’s term in the Georgia Senate.
# # # #
Sen. Chuck Payne serves as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans, Military, and Homeland Security. He represents the 54th Senate District, which includes Whitfield and Murray County as well as part of Gordon County. He may be reached at 404.463.5402 or by email atChuck.Payne@senate.ga.gov.
For all media inquiries, please reach out toSenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.
EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced the donation of more than 600 cases of baby formula worth over $90,000 from supplier Marine Park Distribution, Inc. (Marine Park) for families in the Capital Region. The donation of five pallets of baby formula is part of the $675,000 worth of formula that Attorney General James secured as a result of the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) investigation into Marine Park and its affiliate Formula Depot, Inc. (Formula Depot) for illegal price gouging during the nationwide formula shortage in 2022. At times, Marine Park doubled the price of a can of formula, charging its customers up to $36 for a can of formula that cost $18 before the shortage. The donation was delivered to the Regional Food Bank in Latham to be distributed to families in the Capital Region.
“Businesses cannot take advantage of an emergency to jack up prices for essential goods and rip off New Yorkers,” said Attorney General James. “Marine Park and Formula Depot’s price gouging put families at risk, and today we’re ensuring New Yorkers in need get justice. This formula will benefit families across the Capital Region, and I will continue to enforce our laws to protect New Yorkers from price gouging.”
“We are incredibly grateful to Attorney General James for this donation of baby formula,” said Michael-Aaron Poindexter, Chief Program Officer of the Regional Food Bank. “With food insecurity rates throughout our service area at 12.2 percent, this donation will provide much-needed support and peace of mind to families across our communities. It’s a powerful reminder of what we can accomplish when we come together to support our neighbors in need.”
In 2022, Abbott Laboratories closed one of its baby formula manufacturing plants and recalled formula produced there, creating significant hardship for families throughout New York and the nation as formula supplies dwindled and prices rose. Abbott produces over 40 percent of the infant formula sold in the United States, and the plant it closed was responsible for approximately one fifth of total U.S. production.
New York’s price gouging laws prohibit vendors from unconscionably increasing prices on goods that are vital to consumers’ health, safety, or welfare during market disruptions such as the 2022 formula shortage. In May 2022, Attorney General James issued warnings to more than 30 retailers across the state to stop overcharging for baby formula after consumers reported unreasonably high prices.
An OAG investigation found that Marine Park, which sells baby formula to retailers, and Formula Depot, which sells to consumers online, raised prices over 60 percent more than was allowed under the law during the shortage, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars more in revenue. One consumer, who relied on Formula Depot for formula safe for babies with milk and soy allergies, bought a case of formula for $190, only to be charged $245 for the same case just a few weeks later.
As a result of OAG’s investigation, Marine Park and Formula Depot must provide $675,000 of baby formula that Attorney General James will donate to New Yorkers in need by November 2025. In addition, the two companies are barred from future price gouging and have paid a $75,000 penalty to the state. In December 2024, Attorney General James made the first formula donation from the settlement of 3,300 cans of baby formula worth about $140,000 to Foodlink in Rochester. In March 2025, Attorney General James delivered $344,000 worth of formula to families in the Bronx.
Attorney General James is a leader in the fight to protect New York consumers and guard against price gouging. This week, Attorney General James secured the donation of over $13,500 worth of baby formula from supplier Paragon for families in Brooklyn. Earlier this month, Attorney General James secured over $13,500 worth of baby formula for Rochester families. In March 2025, Attorney General James delivered $6,300 worth of formula for families in Brooklyn. In October 2024, Attorney General James led a multistate coalition urging Congressional leaders to support a national ban on price gouging. In March and April 2024, Attorney General James distributed over 9,500 cans of baby formula in Buffalo and New York City from a settlement with Walgreens for price gouging during the formula shortage. In May 2023, Attorney General James secured a $100,000 settlement with Quality King Distributors, Inc. due to unconscionable price increases for Lysol products during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2021, Attorney General James delivered 1.2 million eggs to food pantries throughout the state which were secured as part of an agreement with the nation’s largest egg producers for price gouging in the early months of the pandemic.
New Yorkers should report potential concerns about price gouging to the OAG by filing a complaint online or calling 800-771-7755.
This matter was handled by Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Fishman, under the supervision of Bureau Chief Jane M. Azia and Deputy Bureau Chief Laura J. Levine, all of the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau. Former Data Scientist Jasmine McAllister also assisted in this matter, under the supervision of Director of Research and Analytics Victoria Khan, Deputy Director Gautam Sisodia, and former Director Megan Thorsfeldt. The Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau is a part of the Division for Economic Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Chris D’Angelo and is overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
May 22, 2025
Legislation would strip Medal of Honor from soldiers who participated in the slaughter of hundreds of Lakota men, women, and children at the Wounded Knee massacre
Text of the Bill (PDF) | Bill One-Pager (PDF)
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Congresswoman Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), reintroduced the Remove the Stain Act. The bill would revoke the Medal of Honor from the soldiers who perpetrated the Wounded Knee massacre on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota on December 29, 1890. During the massacre, U.S. soldiers slaughtered hundreds of Lakota men, women, and children—most of them unarmed. Twenty U.S. soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor—the highest military decoration—for their actions at Wounded Knee.
Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) co-sponsored the bill.
As the country’s highest military honor, the Medal of Honor is awarded in the name of Congress for “gallantry beyond the call of duty.” The 101st Congress (1989-1990) adopted a concurrent resolution acknowledging the 100th anniversary of the massacre and “expresse(d) its deep regret on behalf of the United States” for the “terrible tragedy.”
Congress has rescinded Medals of Honor before. The Remove the Stain Act would do the same for perpetrators of the Wounded Knee Massacre, to respect and honor the Lakota men, women, and children who lost their lives, advance justice, and take a step toward righting a profound wrong in our nation’s history.
“We cannot be a country that celebrates and rewards horrifying acts of violence against Native people,” said Senator Warren. “Congress must recognize how shameful this massacre was and take an important step toward justice for the Lakota people.”
“We must acknowledge our history and take concrete steps to right historic wrongs from America’s darkest chapters,” said Senator Merkley. “Moving forward together as a nation demands we remember, reflect on, and work to rectify the abhorrent massacre of hundreds of innocent Lakota men, women, and children at Wounded Knee. This horrific injustice is not deserving of our nation’s highest award for military valor, and our long-overdue bill helps finally set the record straight by revoking these medals.”
“The massacre of hundreds of unarmed Lakota men, women, and children at Wounded Knee was a crime against humanity, and honoring the perpetrators with the Medal of Honor adds insult to that deep wound. The Remove the Stain Act is about facing the truth, no matter how painful,” said Representative Tokuda. “I’m proud to introduce this bill to revoke medals that should never have been given, because healing begins with honesty—and the Lakota people deserve nothing less.”
Senators Warren and Merkley first introduced the Remove the Stain Act in the 116th Congress, and again in 117th Congress. Former Representatives Denny Heck (D-Wash.), Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), and Paul Cook (R-Calif.) led the bill in the House in the 116th Congress and Congressman Kaiali’i Kahele (D-Hawaii) led the bill in the 117th Congress.
The Remove the Stain Act is supported by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe, Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the Native Organizers Alliance, Four Directions, Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Spotted Elk, Afraid of Hawk, Catches, and LeBeau families — alongside other stakeholders. It is also supported by coalitions of veterans, including Veterans for Peace, VoteVets, Common Defense, and Veterans for American Ideals.
“For decades, NCAI and Tribal Nations have steadfastly called on Congress to revoke the Medals of Honor awarded to the U.S. 7th Cavalry for their role in the Wounded Knee Massacre. The continued recognition of those responsible for the brutal slaughter of our Lakota relatives—women, children, and elders—remains a shameful stain on our nation’s conscience. Our ancestors and their survivors have long awaited justice, and taking action on this issue is long overdue. We are deeply grateful to Senator Warren and Senator Merkley for reintroducing the Remove the Stain Act, a critical step toward condemning the horrific atrocities committed at Wounded Knee. NCAI has and will continue to advocate for the passage and signing into law of this important legislation. We remain committed to working alongside our partners to ensure justice, healing, and reconciliation for all Native American communities affected by this historic injustice,” said the National Congress of American Indians. Read the full letter of support here.
“As President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, I express my Tribal Nation’s gratitude to Senator Warren for again reintroducing the Remove the Stain Act. The Act will revoke the Medals of Honor inappropriately awarded to soldiers for slaughtering hundreds of Lakota men, women, and children at the Wounded Knee Massacre. This bill would not only help recognize a monstrous injustice but also preserve the integrity I and so many others associate with being awarded a Medal of Honor for service to the United States of America,” said Frank Star Comes Out, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Read the full letter of support here.
“My Uncí (grandmother) Marcella LeBeau served as a U.S. Army nurse in World War II at the Battle of the Bulge, she strongly advocated for the Remove the Stain Act to rescind the Wounded Knee Massacre Medals of Honor. She said, ‘there is a pervasive sadness among our Lakota People due to the tragic loss of our Relatives at Wounded Knee.
The Remove the Stain Act takes the significant step of revoking Medals of Honor that were unjustly awarded to U.S. soldiers who murdered over 350 children, women and men at the Wounded Knee Massacre. We commend Senator Warren and Senator Merkley’s leadership and commitment to ensuring that the wrongs of the past are acknowledged and addressed,” said Ryman LeBeau, Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Read the full letter of support here.
“December 29, 2025, will mark 135 years since the Wounded Knee Massacre, when historians estimate that members of the U.S. Army 7th Cavalry Regiment killed at least 150 women and children — some estimates go even higher. In 1990, to commemorate one hundred years since the massacre, the 101st Congress passed a concurrent resolution describing the victims murdered and wounded as ‘tragic death and injury,’ going on to express ‘… its deep regret on behalf of the United States to the descendants of the victims and survivors and their respective tribal communities…’ I was angered but, unfortunately, not surprised that soldiers received awards for their role in the atrocities. I am outraged that, despite our government’s explicit recognition of the crimes, those who refuse to face the ugly and racist parts of U.S. history prevail. It is past time for acknowledgement and accountability. Revoke the awards now,” said Michael T. McPhearson, U.S. Army Captain Combat Veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, with Veterans for Peace.
“I support the Remove the Stain Act as a critical step toward justice for the victims of the Wounded Knee Massacre and their descendants. Rescinding these Medals of Honor will restore the integrity of this prestigious award and honor the truth of our nation’s history. This legislation is a necessary measure to acknowledge historical injustices, promote healing for Native American communities, and demonstrate a commitment to equity and reconciliation,” said Chairman Garret Renville of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe.
“As direct blood descendants of several ancestors, including the leader, Chief Spotted Elk, a Minneconjou treaty signer, we strongly support the Remove the Stain Act. Our ancestors were killed in one of the largest and most notorious massacres in history, and the Medals of Honor awarded to the soldiers responsible for their deaths continue to dishonor their memory. It is well-documented that the soldiers deliberately targeted women and children with cannons, killing innocents and even their own men in the chaos. Our people, unaware of their fate that day, were brutally massacred, and this alone is reason enough to rescind the medals. For the Spotted Elk Tiospaye, the Medals of Honor symbolize not only the massacre but also the erasure of our ancestors’ dignity and legacy. Rescinding them is a critical step in correcting history and ensuring that our ancestors, Spotted Elk and Flying Horse, and the others are remembered as leaders, not as casualties of a government that celebrated their killers. Spotted Elk’s photograph, taken after his death, where he is frozen in the snow, has become a grim icon. Yet, to this day, no meaningful effort has been made to correct the errors surrounding his true name or history. He continues to be confused with an Oglala sub-chief who died nine years after the Wounded Knee Massacre. This long-standing confusion compounds the burden and grief we carry as direct descendants, dividing our people and perpetuating false narratives that tragically impact families in ways too painful to fully express here. We are grateful for your work on the Remove the Stain Act to rescind the medals and ask for your continued assistance in correcting this grave injustice. We stand with you in supporting the removal of these Medals as a necessary step toward healing and justice, and we deeply appreciate your leadership in making this long-overdue change possible,” said Calvin and Michelle Spotted Elk of the Spotted Elk Family. Read the full letter of support here.
“I am the living Descendant of my Grandfather Richard Afraid of Hawk/Cetan Kokipa, who was one of the 1890 Wounded Knee Descendant Survivor. At the age of 16/17 years of age. The tragedy of the massacre of Uphan Gleska/Spotted Elk/Big Foots Band. From Our Homelands of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Was a planned attack directed by Colonel James Forsyth. And his 7th Calvary Unit. A senseless act of cowardice. To this day the unjust wrong done by the US Government/7th Calvary. Can be felt the heavy sadness. Upon the living Descendants. The removal of the Medals of Honor will be righteous and just cause. As this was indeed a Massacre done to our Relatives. So that the grieving and healing process will begin. As a Lakota Nation as a whole. Thank you/Pilamaye for your passion and hard work. To correct the wrong of Our Relatives,” said Marlis Afraid of Hawk of the Afraid of Hawk Family.
“As Co-Executive Directors of Four Directions Native Vote Barb & I want to express our heartfelt gratitude to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley and Representative Jill Tokuda for reintroducing the Remove the Stain Act. We and the descendants continue to think of our relatives who faced a terrible massacre at Wounded Knee. We must show the World these types of actions are not condoned and this legislation will start a healing process for the people and Nations,” said OJ and Barb Semans of Four Directions Native Vote. Read the full letter of support here.
“As Chairman of the Coalition of Large Tribes and Chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, I want to express my gratitude on behalf of COLT and SWO to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley and Representative Jill Tokuda for reintroducing the Remove the Stain Act in the 119 Congress. The Oglala, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes as well as the 7 other Tribes in South Dakota all have Wounded Knee Descendants within our territories and the passage of this bill will create healing for the Descendants and our Nation,” said J. Garret Renville, Chairman Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT).
“Rescinding these Medals of Honor – awarded for actions that embody dishonor – is essential to maintaining the distinction of our nation’s highest military award. Those who have been earned the Medal of Honor for true acts of valor in the course of their military service should not be in the same company as the twenty individuals awarded for participation in the Wounded Knee Massacre. It’s long past time for Congress to act and rescind those Medals. We applaud Senator Warren’s leadership and encourage every Member to join her in this effort,” said Mary Kaszynski, VoteVets Director of Government Relations.
“History lives and breathes in the stories we tell and is buried by those we ignore. The Wounded Knee Massacre is a story we cannot forget. It was not an act of bravery but a brutal attempt to erase the Lakota people from their land. And yet, rather than mourning the over 300 lives lost, we rewarded the very hands that pulled the triggers with Medals of Honor. The Remove the Stain Act is not about rewriting history—it is about recognizing the truth and acknowledging our rights, as Native peoples, to live freely in our homelands. The Native Organizers Alliance stands with the Tribal Nations and leaders in demanding justice. The revocation of these medals will not undo the tragedy of Wounded Knee, but it will be a step toward telling the truth about what happened that day. It is time for Congress to act, not out of favor, but out of respect for the Lakota people and the truth,” said Tre Nez, Director of Policy at the Native Organizers Alliance.
Additional letters of support for the Remove the Stain Act are available from the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association, Inc., Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, and a Descendant of the Wounded Knee Massacre Violet Catches.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Young Kim (CA-39)
Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Representative Young Kim (CA-40) applauded the Senate introduction of companion legislation to her Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act by Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).
This bipartisan, bicameral bill would support Taiwan’s participation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by ensuring the U.S. governor to the IMF advocates for:
Taiwan’s admission to the IMF as a member;
Taiwan’s participation in the IMF’s regular surveillance activities relating to Taiwan’s economic and financial policies;
Employment opportunities at the IMF for Taiwan nationals; and,
Taiwan’s ability to receive IMF technical assistance and training.
On February 4, 2025, Reps. Kim and Al Green (TX-09) introduced H.R. 910, which passed out of the House Financial Services Committee on March 5, 2025.
“Taiwan – the 21st largest economy in the world and producer of 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductor chip supply – doesn’t just deserve a seat at the table at the IMF. The free world needs Taiwan at the IMF,” said Congresswoman Young Kim. “We cannot be complicit as international organizations kowtow to Beijing and silence Taiwan’s voice, which is why I am grateful to Senator McCormick for introducing the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate. I look forward to working in lockstep to get this to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reintroduced the Strengthening Medicare and Reducing Taxpayer (SMART) Prices Act, legislation to expand Medicare negotiation of drug prices to lower drug costs for consumers, reduce federal spending, and give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stronger tools to negotiate lower drug prices in Medicare Part B and Part D.
This Senators’ legislation builds on their provision passed into law in 2022 which empowered Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time, unleashing the power of 53 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D Drug Coverage. The SMART Prices Act would extend this progress by more than doubling the number of prescription drugs Medicare must negotiate to a minimum of 50 per year, allowing the most costly prescription drugs and biologics to have negotiated prices five years after approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and by increasing the discount that Medicare is allowed to negotiate.
“Far too many Americans struggle to pay for the prescription drugs they need,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to partner with my friend and colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and reintroduce the SMART Prices Act. This bill will build on the Inflation Reduction Act by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate the prices of more prescription drugs and lower the cost of the prescription drugs Vermonters need, faster.”
“No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and affording their medications. This bill builds on our progress to lower prescription drug costs by accelerating Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices for more drugs on behalf of the American people,” said Senator Klobuchar. “We will make prescriptions more affordable and save taxpayers more money by continuing to take on Big Pharma’s price gouging.”
According to preliminary estimates from a model by West Health and Verdant Research, if the SMART Prices Act was enacted in 2026, it would save 33% more by 2030 than current law. It would also allow Medicare to begin negotiations earlier and bring down the price of more expensive drugs.
In addition to Senators Welch and Klobuchar, the SMART Prices Act is cosponsored by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
“Hard-working Nevadans often struggle to afford the high prices of the medications that they rely on,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This common-sense fix builds on the legislation, passed and signed into law by Democrats, that caps insulin at $35 a month and allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices. We will continue to deliver real solutions that lower costs for American families and end Big Pharma’s price gouging.”
“People in the United States are paying four times more than people in similar countries pay for life-saving medications,” said Senator Durbin. “Democrats took the first step to address this issue three years ago by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, to enable Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma to lower costs for seniors—while every Republican opposed these savings. Now, instead of focusing on lowering prices for Americans, Republicans in Congress are focused on cutting Medicaid to give tax breaks to billionaires. Senate Democrats are introducing the SMART Prices Act tohelp lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, expand on the progress we have made, and improve health care for Americans.”
“No one should be forced to choose between paying for lifesaving prescription drugs and putting food on the table,” said Senator Gillibrand. “This vital, commonsense legislation would help lower the unacceptably high cost of prescription medication for seniors on Medicare. I’m proud to champion this effort, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it passed.”
“In 2023, my colleagues and I took on Big Pharma and moved to help lower prescription drug costs by finally allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of medications. But rather than build upon this important work, the Trump Administration wants to add loopholes and exemptions that weaken this program and result in higher prices for patients,” said Senator Hassan. “This legislation rejects the Trump Administration’s handouts to Big Pharma and instead accelerates the drug price negotiation efforts that will help more people afford the medications that they need.”
“While the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans work to gut Medicare to give massive tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk, I’m fighting to protect and strengthen Medicare for New Mexicans,” said Senator Heinrich. “I’m proud to co-sponsor legislation that will lower health care costs by making more prescription drugs affordable for New Mexico’s seniors enrolled in Medicare.”
“Lifesaving prescription medications shouldn’t break the bank,” said Senator King.“Expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices will go a long way toward helping Maine people get the medication they need at a price they can afford. The SMART Prices Act is a commonsense step that will help Maine people save money and stay healthy, and I thank my colleagues for putting Maine people first.”
“No one should have to choose between paying for life-saving medication and putting food on the table. At a time when President Trump’s tariffs threaten to raise prices on everyday goods and medicine, the SMART Prices Act is more important than ever for New Mexican families,” said Senator Luján. “That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to lower prescription drug costs by strengthening Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices, helping Americans afford the medications they rely on.”
“The amount of money Minnesotans are paying for their medications is out of control & unsustainable,” said Senator Smith. “This legislation would empower Medicare to negotiate lower prices, faster — and for more prescription drugs. And yet here we are, with President Trump and Congressional Republicans sabotaging Medicare’s power to negotiate lower drug prices at every turn, all while raising prices for seniors and giving handouts to Big Pharma. I’ll keep working to get this bill passed and make sure everyone has access to the medication they need.”
“No one should ever have to decide between filling a life-saving prescription and putting gas in the tank or food on the table,” said Senator Merkley. “The Inflation Reduction Act was an important step forward to make sure Americans get the best price, not the worst, for several prescription drugs. President Trump has said he wants to lower drug costs for families and seniors across America, and Senate Democrats are offering real proposals to crack down on Big Pharma’s sky-high drug prices.”
“Drug companies have had a free pass to gouge seniors for decades and people in Connecticut are paying the price,” said Senator Murphy. “It’s time to put an end to the price games. This legislation would give the federal government power to negotiate drugs more quickly after they are approved and with more substantial cost-savings for patients. It’s time to stop the abuse.”
“The prices Americans pay for many medications that treat cancer, diabetes, and other common conditions have actually gone down in recent years thanks to the law Democrats passed in 2022 that forced Big Pharma to the negotiating table with Medicare for the first time ever,” said Senator Murray. “The SMART Prices Act would build on that important progress and expand these savings to more medications, and more people. Donald Trump is lying and making empty promises when it comes to lowering drug costs—meanwhile Republicans are pushing to pass a mega-bill that would rip away health care from millions of people. I’m going to keep fighting to make sure no person is forced to choose between putting food on the table and buying life-saving medication.”
“No one should have to choose between medicine and groceries. Multi-billion-dollar drug corporations are making obscene profits off of seniors and working families struggling just to get by,” said Senator Fetterman. “The SMART Prices Act is not complicated: it will boost Medicare’s ability to negotiate fair deals with pharmaceutical companies and bring drug prices down. Big Pharma lobbyists might hate it, but regular people sure as hell won’t.”
“One of the biggest expenses for seniors on fixed incomes is prescription drug costs. I helped include provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act to lower the prices seniors pay at the pharmacy counter. The SMART Prices Act builds on this progress by strengthening Medicare’s ability to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices,” said Senator Reed.
“Through the Inflation Reduction Act, we stood up to Big Pharma and took important steps to lower health care costs for seniors – empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prices for medications that millions of older Americans rely on. But there’s more we can do. This legislation expands Medicare’s negotiating leverage to cut the prices of even more drugs – a commonsense way to provide more health care cost relief for seniors while saving billions in taxpayer dollars,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“While Republicans in Congress are jamming through a bill that would rip health care away from 14 million Americans and raise drug prices for seniors, we’re doubling down on lowering drug prices and cutting costs for families. We’ll keep fighting to make sure people have access to the life-saving care and medications they need,” said Senator Warren.
“As Republicans move to cut health care, Democrats are working to lower health care and prescription drug costs for our nation’s seniors,” said Senator Whitehouse. “Our SMART Prices Act will build on progress made in our Inflation Reduction Act and strengthen Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices, providing welcome relief to seniors living on fixed incomes.”
The bill is endorsed by Center for American Progress, FamiliesUSA, Patients For Affordable Drugs NOW, Protect Our Care, and Public Citizen.
“The SMART Prices Act builds on the progress of the Inflation Reduction Act to help bring down today’s exorbitant prescription drug prices,” said Andrea Ducas, Vice President of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress. “The bill is an important step forward in holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and ensuring seniors are paying fair and affordable prices for life-saving medications.”
“One in three Americans can’t afford their prescription drugs. We hear from patients every day who are rationing medication or skipping doses because of high drug costs. The SMART Prices Act is a welcome step that builds on the historic drug price reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act byincreasing the number of drugs subject to Medicare negotiation – a proposal that has broad support from Americans on both sides of the aisle. We are grateful to Senator Klobuchar for her tireless leadership on this critical issue and are eager to expand Medicare negotiation to secure a better deal for more patients on Medicare,” said Merith Basey, Executive Director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now.
“Senators Klobuchar and Welch are fighting for seniors and their families by bringing down the high cost of prescription drugs,” said Protect Our Care Chair Leslie Dach. “Americans across the political spectrum support Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices and want to see the program expand. Instead, Trump and his cronies in Congress are charging ahead with their budget that not only guts Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to fund billionaire tax breaks, but hands billions in give-aways over to Big Pharma. The contrast couldn’t be more clear. If Republicans are serious about wanting to lower drug prices and save taxpayer dollars, they should join Senators Klobuchar and Welch in passing the SMART Prices Act and deliver real, lasting relief for the American people.”
“The SMART Prices Act would save billions of dollars by empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prices for more patients sooner. We applaud Senators Klobuchar, Welch, and cosponsors for their leadership. Congressional Republicans should follow their lead instead of seeking to undermine Medicare drug price negotiations and take away health insurance from millions of our society’s most vulnerable people,” said Robert Weissman, Co-President of Public Citizen.
Learn more about the SMART Prices Act.
Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
“Now, they’re [Democrats] trying to make up for it by coming after people that actually know what they’re doing and wanna help this country. And that’s Marco Rubio.”
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined “The Evening Edit” on Fox Business to discuss Democrats’ attacks toward Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his hearings on Capitol Hill this week.
Excerpts from Senator Tuberville can be found below, and his full remarks can be found on Rumble or YouTube.
MacDONALD: “Joining us now for reaction from Senate Armed Services—he’s Alabama Senator, Tommy Tuberville. Senator, it’s always great to have you on. What do you make of what happened with Marco Rubio—the Secretary’s—testimony today?”
TUBERVILLE: “Well, number one, he’s standing up for the American people. He’s standing up for our country. And he’s standing up for our Constitution. You never see that from the Democratic Party who’s actually turned into the party of cartels and criminals—it’s absolutely amazing to me we have a plan. There was no plan, Liz, here for four years. People were running amuck. There was no rudder on their ship. They had no clue where they were going. Now, they’re trying to make up for it by coming after people that actually know what they’re doing and wanna help this country. And that’s Marco Rubio.”
MacDONALD: “He also said that U.S. foreign aid, that it’s not a charity that it sits squarely inside U.S. national interests overseas. What did you make of that when you heard it?”
TUBERVILLE: “Well, I thought it was a great comment because people look at us as somebody that—in terms of the Democrats—of somebody that’s selfish. They don’t do things for other people. We help more people than all the other countries combined. And he just said that, and I’m proud for Marco Rubio bringing that out because very few people like to talk about it. The American taxpayers really help millions of people all over the world and it needs to be advertised every day, but you would never know it if you’d ask the Democrat[s] because they think that the American people should be giving everything away and not keeping anything for themselves to make them stronger as a family.”
MacDONALD: “So, when you saw the Democrats perform, do you think any of them landed any punches?”
TUBERVILLE: “Oh, no. No. There again, Marco Rubio, he could debate all of those people all day long and they’d never get anything over on him. He’s much smarter than they are. He believes—again, when you have a game plan, when you have an idea of what you wanna do—an outline—and address the future of your job, you can handle whatever they put out at you, but they were scrambling. They were trying to make him look bad. I’d put Marco Rubio in front of any of these people and he would win every time.”
MacDONALD: “Senator Tuberville, it’s always a pleasure and it’s great to see you again. Thanks for joining us tonight.”
TUBERVILLE: “Thank you.”
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON — In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) called out House Republicans for holding a committee meeting at 1 a.m. to quietly advance then pass a bill that would cut health care and reduce food assistance for millions, as well as promote a dying and dirty fossil fuel energy agenda — all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
“This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you’re probably not proud of what you’re doing,” Senator Schatz began. “Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they’ve been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what’s happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it’s because they know this bill stinks.”
“It is the largest wealth transfer in American history… They’re literally taking from the poor — people who don’t have enough money — and shoveling straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people to ever walk the earth even richer,” Senator Schatz continued. “How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry — all so that billionaires have a bit more.”
“Even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis… This is going to raise costs for Americans,” said Senator Schatz. “And so there is a reason they convened at 1 a.m., and it is not because that’s prime time in Hawai‘i. They didn’t convene at 1 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.”
The full text of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.
This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you’re probably not proud of what you’re doing. Now, there are some instances in which you start the meeting at 7 p.m. and it goes long, and then you have to vote at whatever hour you finish. But to convene at 1 a.m. is an intentional thing, right? It is to say: “I would very much like if nobody saw what we were up to.” And that’s exactly what happened at 1a.m. today, Wednesday morning.
Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they’ve been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what’s happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1:00 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it’s because they know this bill stinks.
For starters, it is the largest wealth transfer in American history. Think about that—been a lot of wealth transfers in American history, but this is the biggest one in terms of the tax code. It’s not like they’re redistributing wealth among the wealthy. They are literally taking from the poor—people who don’t have enough money—and shoveling it straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people ever to walk the Earth even richer.
How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry—all so that billionaires have a bit more.
You do not need fancy polling to tell you that this is super unpopular. And so Republicans have decided to fix that problem by convening the hearing in the middle of the night, hoping that people will not notice.
The plain facts of the bill are so egregious. And as I started to write these remarks, I had a problem, which is: how do you describe this thing accurately and not sound like you’re frothing at the mouth, like a partisan, and sort of overstating the case? Because this really is kicking 14 million people off of Medicaid, kicking millions more off of food assistance, and then that is the savings that is generated in order to fund these tax cuts for billionaire corporations and the wealthiest people in the United States.
And what happens if something is both true and sounds like a partisan accusation? But that’s where we’re at. This is actually what they’re trying to do. And here’s the thing—even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis.
Never mind that hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in clean energy across the country—mostly in Republican states and districts. Never mind that those investments are creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. Never mind that even if you don’t care about any of that, there is a basic principle in running a smart economy and running an investable economy—and that is that when the private sector makes an investment on the basis of the tax code, and they are in the middle of that investment, that you can’t pull the rug out from under them.
And the reason is very simple. Besides fairness—and besides the fact that we are undermining progress toward actually addressing an existential crisis for the planet—it also makes the United States very hard to invest in. Because if you are a business and you are looking at the federal tax code and you’re saying, “I’m going to make a five-, maybe ten-year investment—capital investment—chips, manufacturing, climate, agriculture, hospitality, real estate, transportation, infrastructure, whatever it may be,” but you’re doing it on the basis of what the federal tax code says, and then your investment committee, the board of directors, whomever it may be, will say: “Well, how do we know these things are going to stay on the books?”
And the normal answer is, “Well, come on—the federal government is not going to pull out a tax incentive structure in the middle of your investment and construction cycle.” And the truth is: yes, they are. And so this doesn’t have just climate implications or economic implications in terms of the specific projects. It actually has to do with how stable of an investment climate we establish in the United States of America.
You know, we’re no longer doing “all of the above.” The argument that we used to have between the political parties was: Democrats would say, “We’ve got to transition to clean energy.” Republicans would say, “No, let’s do clean energy, but let’s also do these other things.” But now the Republican position is picking winners and losers—and basically riding the losers into the ground.
Here’s the very tough truth: coal is on the way out, whether you like it or not. But Trump and Republicans would rather revive it for a few more years just to squeeze a couple more years of profitability out of it. Because, after all, their capital investments are fully amortized. So a couple more years of profitability means no more investment, but a couple more years of revenue. And so that’s what they’re doing.
This is going to raise costs for Americans. Let’s be clear—this is going to raise costs for Americans.
There was a time—and I was part of these debates in the state of Hawai‘i—there was a time when there was a tradeoff between how much consumers had to pay and our climate objectives. But those trends have changed. So now wind is the cheapest form of energy. Nuclear is among the cheapest forms of energy. Solar is among the cheapest forms of energy.
For me, in the state of Hawai‘i, to bring in low-sulfur fuel oil on a fuel tanker and then light it on fire for electrons is the single dumbest thing you could do—even if you didn’t care about climate. It is simply cheaper. It is simply cheaper for consumers, and businesses, and for the climate crisis, and therefore our ability to fiscally manage the climate crisis, as we see increasing disasters—both in their severity and how often they happen.
And then every, what, year, year and a half, we do a $150 billion emergency supplemental because there are now wildfires where there have never been wildfires, floods where there have never been floods, tornadoes where there have never been tornadoes. This is not made up. Nobody gets to deny this anymore.
And so there is a reason they convened at 1:00 a.m., and it is not because that’s prime time in Hawai`i. They didn’t convene at 1:00 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1:00 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.
And I just wonder why. If I’m a House member and I’m being told, “We’re going to make all these changes—all these things that you’re voting for are going to be excised from the Senate version, don’t worry”—well, my view would be: if you’re going to fix all that stuff, why are you making me vote on it now? Why are you making me vote on it now?
And the answer is very simple: Donald Trump showed up in the caucus, used a couple of expletives. They implied that voting no is a betrayal—that standing up for your constituents is a betrayal. And I think they’re all going to fall in line. And so it is up to the United States Senate to fix this bill or kill this bill. And so that’s the task in front of us. And I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I know there are a number of Republicans that hate these Medicaid cuts. I know there are a number of Republicans who have a ton of clean energy investment in their state.
And there’s plenty of political room to criticize the Biden administration or say “I’m against the Green New Deal” and still be for wind, and solar, and nuclear, and geothermal, and agriculture that’s done in a more climate-friendly way. All of that is available to us. We don’t have to do things in the maximally unpopular way. But the Speaker apparently wants to do it that way.
Scientists from the US Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) will conduct ship-based research in the deep waters and seafloor far offshore the Hawaiian Islands in Fall 2024. The team, with its broad range of expertise in biology, geology, and oceanography, will study marine minerals and their environmental setting—the microbes and animals that coexist with them and the characteristics of the surrounding sediments and seawater—in the deepest and least scientifically characterized parts of the ocean, known as the abyssal plains.
Map showing study area (outlined in yellow) of the Hawaii Abyssal Nodules and Associated Ecosystems Expedition.
Abyssal Plains and Manganese Nodules
Abyssal plains exist at depths between 3,000 and 6,000 meters (9,800 to 19,700 feet) and constitute more than 70 percent of the global seafloor. Processes driving the geology and biology of these deep-sea environments remain largely unstudied. To facilitate understanding of global abyssal seafloor settings given the very little physical data available, scientists use large-scale factors like sedimentation rate, surface primary productivity, and bathymetry to predict the geologic features, marine minerals, and ecosystems that are likely to occur. In the abyssal regions about 230 miles (~370 kilometers) south of the Island of Hawaiʻi, oceanographic and geologic evidence indicate that manganese nodules may be present on the seafloor.
Abyssal manganese nodules—concretions smaller than a fist that are mainly composed of iron and manganese and form very slowly, at rates of millimeters per million years—offer a distinct habitat for local fauna compared to the surrounding sediment-covered seafloor. Since these nodules form in layers, they can offer unique insights into the geochemistry of the ocean going back millions of years, yet their formation, regional distribution, and interaction with their environment is still not well understood.
The research expedition will characterize the abyssal plain south of Hawai’i, focusing on the interaction of geology and biology within a holistic mineral-environment system.
Source: US State of California Department of Justice
OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 39 attorneys general in urging Congressional leaders to pass the Youth Substance Use Prevention and Awareness Act, a bipartisan bill that would authorize federal grant funding for public service announcement (PSA) campaigns aimed at reducing youth substance use. In addition, the bill would promote innovation by supporting youth-led PSA contests — an approach that not only engages young people directly but also encourages peer-to-peer communication, which is shown to be highly effective.
“Youth substance use is a serious problem — one that affects all communities, no matter their politics,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m joining a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in supporting the Youth Substance Use Prevention and Awareness Act because it can help to save lives. I urge Congress to pass this bill as quickly as possible.”
In the letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the attorneys general emphasize that:
They are deeply involved in efforts to address substance use and addiction from every angle — criminal enforcement, civil litigation, consumer protection, public education, and prevention.
The earlier an individual begins using substances, the likelier they are to develop substance use disorders later in life. That is why prevention, particularly among youth, remains an effective tool in addressing this public health and public safety crisis.
By requiring annual reports on the content, reach, and outcomes of the funded campaigns, the legislation will ensure transparency, accountability, and effectiveness.
In sending today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, South Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Space Agency (Esa). It has launched spectacularly successful missions, but is different to other space agencies which generally represent one country. Esa is funded by 23 member states and also has cooperation agreements with nations such as Canada.
Esa operates cutting edge spacecraft designed to monitor the Earth, as well as space telescopes that study the distant cosmos. It has launched robotic spacecraft to other planets and to objects such as comets. It is also involved in human spaceflight – training European astronauts to work on the International Space Station (ISS).
These are hugely successful achievements. But the agency now faces challenges as competition heats up among newer space powers such as China and India.
The history of Esa can be traced to events immediately after the second world war, when many European scientists moved to either the US or to the Soviet Union. Many of them realised that projects supported only by a single nation could not compete with those supported by the two big geopolitical players at the time.
This motivated the physicists Pierre Auger, from France, and Edoardo Amaldi, from Italy, to propose a European organisation that would carry out space research and would be “purely scientific”.
In 1962, two agencies were created. One of these, the European Launch Development Organisation (ELDO), would concentrate on developing a rocket. The other, the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO), would focus on developing robotic spacecraft. Both were joined together in 1975 to form the European Space Agency.
The push to build a European rocket would eventually yield the Ariane launcher, which is operated by the French company Arianespace.
The first satellite to be launched under the banner of the newly formed European Space Agency was Cos-B. This spacecraft was designed to monitor a high energy form of radiation called gamma rays, being emitted from objects in space.
Esa collaborated with other space agencies on the Hubble Space Telescope. ESA/NASA
In 1978, Esa cooperated with Nasa and the UK on the International Ultraviolet Explorer mission. This space telescope was designed to observe the cosmos in ultraviolet light, something that cannot be done from Earth.
The agency would later collaborate with Nasa and the Canadian Space Agency on one of the most successful space telescopes of all time: Hubble. Launched in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope helped confirm the expansion rate of the universe and showed that black holes are at the cores of almost all galaxies. Hubble’s stunning images also changed the way that many people saw the universe. Esa funded one of the original instruments on the space telescope, the Faint Object Camera, and provided the first two solar arrays.
The space agency is also a partner on the revolutionary James Webb Telescope, which launched in 2021. Esa contributed two of the telescope’s instruments: the Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NirSpec) and the Mid-Infrared Instrument (Miri).
Solar System missions
Esa has also launched pioneering missions to other planets and objects in our solar system. The first of these was the Giotto comet explorer. This robotic spacecraft flew past Halley’s comet in 1986 and was successfully woken up in 1992 to study a comet called Grigg-Skejllerup.
A second successful cometary mission followed when the Rosetta spacecraft entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014. Rosetta despatched a lander called Philae to touch down on the comet’s surface.
Rosetta has been my favourite of all Esa achievements, simply due to the pure audacity of attempting to land on an object whose shape and composition was until then only sparsely known. In order to “land” on an object with low gravity, Philae was to have deployed harpoons that would attach the lander to the surface. These systems did not work, but the overall mission was a success, leading to high levels of engagement from the public.
Besides comets, Esa launched one of the most successful missions to the red planet: Mars Express. The spacecraft entered orbit around Mars in 2003 and has played a key role in enhancing understanding of our planetary neighbour. It is expected to continue working until at least 2034. Mars Express also carried the ill-fated British Beagle 2 spacecraft to Mars. This was supposed to land in 2003, but contact was never established with the probe, which is presumed to have been damaged while touching down.
In 2005, Esa’s Huygens spacecraft landed on Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. This was the furthest from Earth that a spacecraft has ever landed. These are all outward facing missions, but Esa has also had major success with projects to study what’s going on here on Earth. These include the Envisat satellite, which operated from 2002-2012, and the Sentinel series of spacecraft, which have operated from 2014 to the present.
These have helped map agriculture and forests, understand the Earth’s climate, track ice, and monitor atmospheric ozone. In addition, the Galileo navigation satellites are providing a high precision alternative to GPS.
Esa is also a major player in human spaceflight, having been a partner in the International Space Station project since 1993. It has built sections of the ISS, including the Columbus laboratory, launched in 2008, and the Cupola viewing window, which gives astronauts panoramic views of Earth. The agency’s astronauts regularly spend time on the ISS as crew and could even fly to the Moon under Nasa’s Artemis programme.
Since the 1990s, Esa has frequently collaborated with Nasa – often very successfully. However, this relationship has also faced challenges. In the wake of the financial crisis, for example, Nasa cancelled its participation in several collaborative missions with Esa. Under a proposed Nasa budget this year, the US space agency may again cancel its involvement with the joint Nasa-Esa Mars Sample Return mission.
Esa’s future
Times have changed in the space industry since Esa’s founding 50 years ago. Major countries such as China, India and Japan all have their own space programmes. Esa faces considerable financial pressures to compete with them.
Nevertheless, Esa is working on strengthening its space exploration and launch capabilities through the use of a commercial space port in Norway.
It has also put together a long-term strategy for 2040. This document highlights important areas where Esa can play a major role, including protecting Earth and its climate, continued missions to explore space and also efforts to boost European growth and competitiveness.
All this should strengthen and secure the agency for the future. Through a mixture of developing its own missions and collaborating with other agencies and commercial partners on others, Esa should be a major player in space exploration for decades to come.
Daniel Brown 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.
Pseudonyms are used in this article; interviewees who asked for their real names to be used are asterisked.
In 2016, one of us (Kath) attended New Normal, a conference in London which opposed LGBT+ rights, including lesbian parenting and gender recognition. As a lesbian parent, I was upset by what was said – and by the way people stood to applaud speakers who warned of the dangers of parents like me, while mentioning the need to “protect children”.
Yet that conference also opened my eyes to my – and perhaps, many other people’s – lack of understanding of what it can mean to stand against the apparent state-supported, liberal consensus on such issues. On day two, the organisers appealed for help for the parents of a trans or gender-diverse child. My notes from that day read:
The parents feel they are not listened to, and are ‘encouraged by social services’ to treat ‘her’ like a boy. But social services have only known ‘her’ for six months – so they don’t know ‘her’. The parents are told if they don’t agree to a name change, it is neglectful and that she is suicidal. The mother argues: ‘We love our daughter.’
Unexpectedly and conflictually, I found myself relating to the parents’ story in some way. And I wondered how I would feel as a same-sex parent if I was ever in a situation where my child rejected their family as a “moral abomination”.
These thoughts proved a starting point for Beyond Opposition – our project which, since 2020, has been looking at the lives of people who are reticent about or object to the perceived liberalising of societies’ sexual and gender laws in Great Britain, Ireland and Canada.
The idea of this research is not to defend their positions. Nor is it to explore their politics around sexualities and genders, which we and many others do in research into anti-gender movements. Rather, we wanted to understand the experiences that might drive these politics.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
As far back as 2012, prompted by my colleague, urban geographer Catherine Nash, I (Kath) began noticing an evolution in arguments against changes like same-sex marriage, gender recognition and relationship and sexuality education in schools – an evolution that was not always fully recognised, or even noticed, by supporters of these changes. People who objected to such societal shifts were sometimes being politicised through court cases around their work and their children’s experiences at school.
For Beyond Opposition, we put a call out to people who opposed or had concerns about changing laws and policies related to gender, sexuality or abortion. As well as contacting organisations and activists who actively campaigned against these changes, we used social media to reach out to people who had no connections with these groups.
In more than 160 interviews between 2020 and 2022, we explored the daily experiences of living outside the social consensus in three countries where, at the time, there was broad legal, political and social agreement in favour of same-sex marriage, abortion, gender self-identification and related policies. The surprising diversity of positions and experiences we heard not only shed new light on how societies were changing; they painted a sometimes disturbing picture of how these shifts were being challenged and resisted.
Not all far-right
In the 1990s in secondary school, I would have been completely open about my view on [abortion], because it was a more accepted view, I suppose … [Now] I have this view and don’t feel I can even express it [because] everyone else disagrees … I feel like I can’t even say this to anyone.
We first met Niamh in 2021, three years after Ireland’s historic referendum to repeal one of the EU’s strictest legal barriers to abortion, which led to limited access to abortion care. Where once her anti-abortion views were considered mainstream, in Ireland and many other countries where abortion is accepted legally and socially, now her views are in the minority.
Niamh was clear she did not regard herself as “conservative” and said she was strongly in favour of human rights. She told us: “If I have to categorise myself, I’d categorise myself as ‘pro-life’.” But she expressed frustration at how people assumed this position automatically predicted what she thought about other topics relating to gender and sexuality, explaining:
There’s this thing that’s like: [because] you’re against abortion, you’re against same-sex marriage or against refugees coming into the country … I struggle with it because the people in my circle on social justice issues are not usually aligned with my [anti-abortion] position. They tend to have the opposite view – [mine] tends to be seen as a really conservative stance, not a rights-based stance.
Niamh, like many of our interviewees, expressed views quite differently from the organisations opposing sexual and gender equalities that I (Kath) had encountered in earlier research. While those organisations were diverse, they were often aligned on abortion, same-sex marriage and gender recognition. This contrasted with the differences that people such as British woman Jane identified when we met her.
“I wouldn’t want to sit down in a room with somebody who said gay people were going to hell,” Jane told us. “We just wouldn’t have anything to talk about.” But she also felt it would be “impossible to have a conversation with somebody who does not believe in the existence of biological sex”.
While Jane objected to trans rights being “given primacy”, she thought of herself as different to people who are seen as anti-gender activists. Describing herself as “gender critical”, she said: “Why this is so toxic and has started to spill out into my day-to-day life is that we are all just lumped under one umbrella of hate.”
Like many of our interviewees, Jane objected to being placed in a single category that, in her experience, carries overwhelmingly negative associations. She told us her daily life was being affected because people attributed opinions to her that she considers hateful.
On the whole, public attitudes across the EU and Canada still favour a broadening of gender and sexual inclusion. But academic research on changing social norms relating to gender and sexuality is largely silent on how these changes can affect those who “do not agree”.
Many of our interviewees emphasised their distance from other people who held similar views. Indeed, this sentiment of not fitting a stereotype was so common that we still have no single phrase to describe the group of people we spoke to. Common terms like “anti-gender” or “far-right” were rejected by most participants.
Yet we found the experiences they described had a lot in common. James, in Ireland, said he “came down towards the ‘no’ side” in the 2018 Irish abortion referendum, yet the social associations of this troubled him:
I definitely wouldn’t ever go on a pro-life parade or protest, or anything like that. I see those people [as] ultra-religious conservatives who are not free-thinking, who want to just force their opinions on other people. There’s no way I could ever want to be associated with people like that.
While most interviewees resisted the stereotypes they say get assigned to their position, pushing back against being seen as anti-rights or anti-equalities, some did express positions more in line with a stereotypical anti-gender activist. Brian in Canada, for example, told us he was “in a pro-life Catholic Christian bubble”, and that he would not welcome gay or trans people into his home for dinner.
‘I don’t feel comfortable in my own house’
Anne, a Canadian woman who described herself as a feminist with gender-critical opinions, said she had withdrawn from her volunteer work supporting survivors of sexual violence because she recognised that “my gender-critical opinions are really toxic to others”.
But the relationship that most troubled her was with her daughter. Anne described how her home life had been significantly affected by her interest in “gender-critical” content:
In my house, which should be the place where I feel the most comfortable, at no time do I discuss these things. If I’m watching a video with these concerns, or am online in some way with these concerns, when my daughter who lives with me comes into the room, I turn it off. So I don’t feel at all comfortable in my own house.
Anne was distressed by the impact her gender-critical position had on her relationship with her daughter. She recognised that content she sometimes viewed was considered “toxic” by many people, including her daughter, and expressed sadness about the damage this had done to their relationship:
It’s very saddening to me because my daughter and I are so close, but this has become a barrier. It has become a block. The only time we talked about it at length, we were both in tears.
We heard a number of stories like Anne’s, of close relationships becoming deeply fractured by differences on such topics. These interviewees felt their positions were fundamentally opposed by family members. Some, conscious of the tensions, kept their views to themselves even in their own home. As a result of her differences with her daughter, Anne said: “I don’t speak to her about anything in order to keep peace in the house.”
Ciara, a leftwing Irishwoman who voted against abortion in the 2018 referendum, described the careful way she navigated her friendships, recognising that her friend group would hold very different views to her on abortion:
You kind of judge the friendship a little bit. Can this friendship take this news that I voted ‘no’? [Laughs] I’ve lied – I’ve told others I voted ‘yes’.
Ciara noted that in her everyday life, it was generally assumed everybody was pro-choice – as she had once been. She was not religious and, like many of our interviewees, distanced herself from rightwing politics.
But in her family and among her friends, being against abortion was automatically understood as being rightwing, so she kept quiet about it. This made her question herself, resulting in what she described as “a whole range of inner dilemmas”:
You strategise – you suss out, like, how is this going to go down? How is this going to impact on this friendship? And on trust – how will I be seen?
Keeping quiet among friends and family makes concerned, oppositional positions harder to see and understand. So, it is possible for researchers and others to deny these positions exist – and to not address their impact. Many people spoke to us on condition that their identities would be concealed – something that came across especially strongly when they spoke about their fears at work.
‘At work, I can’t risk my livelihood’
Work is central to many people’s lives. Tammy* from Canada, who described herself as “not a pro-gay person, just a pro-people person”, told us she felt uncomfortable with some workplace inclusion policies, such as Pride month:
At work, we have an app on our phone and … for gay pride, in June, the whole month is just devoted to that history, right? And it annoys me because it’s like: OK, I get it … [but] I don’t like people trying to program me.
The promotion of LGBTQ+ rights through corporate platforms made Tammy feel suspicious. Other Beyond Opposition participants went further, fearing their jobs could be at risk.
For Cindy, who is also from Canada and described herself as “dabbling in gender-critical feminism”, her position was out-of-line with her workplace. Her employer took positive actions to promote LGBTQ+ inclusion. She felt that to object to such actions might “risk my livelihood, so I can’t even broach the subject”.
It was not only the owners and managers who Cindy feared would view her “as a bigot”. She also worried that colleagues might cause conflict for her if she expressed her position outside the workplace consensus.
Like others in our research, Cindy deliberately stayed out of activism. But during her mandatory workplace training, she said: “The whole time I’m biting my tongue.” Her concern was that she might be obliged to take an action that she didn’t believe in:
If anyone were ever to say: ‘Go around the room and say your preferred pronouns,’ I’m not sure how I would answer that because I don’t believe in the ideology of preferred pronouns. I worry that if I just said something like: ‘No thank you, I don’t believe in it,’ that might actually cause me to lose my job.
Workplace inclusion policies, training and practices have been shown to be effective in improving workplaces in terms of their productivity and wellbeing for employees – although in some cases, they can be poorly implemented and insufficient. But some of the people we spoke to, including Tammy and Cindy, described them as “feared” and “hated”.
Mark went even further, suggesting he was being asked to deny his “moral values” – and that his work would not be secure if he didn’t. A freelance worker in rural Ireland, Mark believed he needed to “keep his head down” with regard to his views on sexuality and abortion:
I’m self-employed … I can say it here to you but I’m certainly not shouting about this in the pub. I depend on the milk of human kindness from people.
Some of our interviewees have used the law to challenge employers where their jobs were lost or under threat. Most had not experienced any official sanctions – yet many feared them. Cindy said that as a result, she kept her views to herself at work: “I guess I choose harmony and peace over being right.”
It is these “quiet concerns” at work and among family and friends – of people who are not vocal in opposition to changing laws and policies, but still act against them – that we believe are not well documented or understood. And our research shows that in their experience of being negatively labelled and having their experiences dismissed or minimised, some have been driven to look beyond their usual communities to find support for their views.
Although most people in our study are not activists and did not seek to be public about their views, many quietly supported those who were, or engaged with them to find support for their views.
Those who felt uncomfortable talking to people in their own circles often told us about how they had found support elsewhere. Suzy, a British woman who said she was gender critical, described the first meeting she had attended that opposed trans rights:
I just happened to make the decision to go [to a conference run by an organisation opposing gender self-identification] on my own … I had nobody in my life at that point who was a feminist who had these views. It’s why I went by myself. And I met some really amazing women who just completely welcomed me into this world. That opened a lot of doors for me.
Suzy’s experience was echoed by others who had concerns about trans rights or gender recognition. Such groups were not always public, and some organised in secret – something Suzy believed was unjust but necessary, because of the distance from the social consensus of people who held views like hers:
There is a private online messaging app – you have to be invited. I had to be vetted … to make sure I was a real person – [that] I wasn’t trying to infiltrate. It’s so ridiculous that we are having to jump through these hoops just to talk about it and express our opinion about something that for a really long time was okay to think. Now all of a sudden, it’s not okay to think this way. So you’re a societal pariah.
At the time of our interview in 2020, Suzy was actively involved in organising to oppose the proposed amendments to the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. She had moved from having “nobody in my life … who was a feminist who had those views”, to participating in an organised campaign to influence this legislation:
I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as an activist – I think that word is quite a bit loaded in negative connotations now … I prefer the term ‘campaigner’ because what I started to get involved in was campaigning for the law not to be changed. I wasn’t going out on marches or anything like that.
Proposals to update the Act in line with international human rights standards stalled and then were halted in the UK from 2018 onwards, with the support of civil society campaigners including Suzy. Since then, other campaigns have had greater successes – including, most recently, a Supreme Court ruling defining “sex” as “biological sex” in the 2010 Equality Act.
‘I’m not saying that I am right’
For the many people who have spent years campaigning for gender equality and to improve LGBTQ+ lives, it is possible to understand the day-to-day accounts of our interviewees as evidence of success. Many told us they could not now express opinions on others’ relationships, sexual activity or their decisions about pregnancy and parenthood in some workplaces – and sometimes even at home.
For some interviewees, this shift was expressed as fear, where their positions were seen to negatively affect them at work even if they didn’t express them openly. They didn’t feel able to raise questions about gender and sexual equality or abortion at work or in their volunteering and organising spaces.
It is possible to understand this shift as a welcome victory for equalities. But our research highlights that, for many people who maintain reticence to these societal changes, the ability to reconsider or change their position has been reduced by their day-to-day work, social and family experiences.
Cindy, for example, expressed a moment of doubt about her concerns about trans rights, admitting: “I’m not saying that I am right. Like, there is the possibility I’m not …” However, this reflective stance was not encouraged by experiences of work that she described as forcing her to “bite my tongue”.
She and others told us the implementation of inclusion policies and training in their workplaces felt paradoxical – because they’d had the effect of making their own behaviour less inclusive. Cindy admitted she was less inclined to question herself because of the way she felt her views were treated.
Mark, the freelance worker in Ireland, considered himself “very leftwing” and said he would “always defend the underdog”. But he told us people like him were “very much put off” by what he saw as the “tactics of what now are leftwing liberal policies”. His experiences of feeling outside the consensus, and fearing a loss of employment opportunities, meant he – and others we interviewed – were less open to engaging sympathetically with the experiences of sexual- and gender-minoritised people.
Fear, upset and discomfort from social change
While stories like Niamh’s and Cindy’s are sometimes used to argue that transformations have “gone too far”, research does not support this argument. In fact, those “left out in the cold” are typically the LGBTQ+ people whose needs are not being met by policies like same-sex marriage (or who remain excluded from these policies), and those seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare in all its forms.
Our interviewees do not negate this. They highlight the fear, upset and discomfort that results from social change for some people who hold firm to their positions opposing or questioning provisions such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gender recognition. In research, these everyday experiences are rarely considered beyond their political views (assumed to be rightwing) and how to explain or change them.
Our interviewees believe their positions are frequently mis-characterised and conflated in the media and by policymakers in order to dismiss them – and therefore, that their experiences go unseen and unrecognised. And in their experience of being outsiders – feeling labelled and minimised – they may, like Suzy, find their way to actively opposing legislation and social change that benefits LGBTQ+ people and/or those who need abortion rights. Some offered quiet support to political causes, including donating their time or money.
The world today is very different even to 2022, when we finished the Beyond Opposition interviews. The UK has seen some fundamental shifts especially regarding gender recognition, including the recent Supreme Court ruling that defined “sex” as “biological sex” in the 2010 Equality Act.
In the US, providing affirmative care to trans children was deemed “mutilation” in recent executive orders from the president, Donald Trump, which stated that offering support to trans and gender-diverse children against their families’ will would be considered as “child abuse”.
As the struggle for rights continues, we believe it’s essential for research, policy and practice to pay attention to the full range of impacts of the divisions that drive much of today’s politics. Experiences like those of the parents at the conference mentioned at the start of this article, who felt that affirming their child’s gender identity went against their beliefs, contribute to the shape of the world we all live in.
It is possible to have a clear and firm view on the rights of trans and gender-diverse children, while also considering the implications for society of the experiences (as distinct from the opinions and arguments) of those who disagree. It feels important to do this now in places where some of us – lesbian parents, parents of trans kids and others – are still (somewhat) protected by the system, as we find ourselves, in the US and elsewhere, once again labelled “a danger to children”.
For the second phase of Beyond Opposition, we brought people together from very different positions to see if they could imagine a world where they could live together, without seeking to change each other’s minds. We wanted to know if there were new ways of thinking about the problem of division, which recognised that some differences may be here to stay.
Our intention was not to debate, negotiate or resolve their differences, but to explore the idea that it may be necessary to live together without ever agreeing on aspects related to gender, sexuality or abortion. One key outcome of these workshops was a number of moments in which participants met a complete impasse – where they had to acknowledge that their utopia could not accommodate the other person’s position at all.
This is a starting point for important questions about not being able to change someone else’s mind, yet still needing to share places with them. We hope to write more on this subject soon.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Dr. Carol Ballantine researches genders, sexualities and violence. She worked as the Ireland and UK postdoctoral researcher on Beyond Opposition, funded by the ERC.
This article is funded by work undertaken under the ERC Grant No: 81789 granted to Kath Browne and also receives EU Horizon Europe funding. She has worked for LGBTQIA+ organisations is affiliated with LinQ.
Source: United States of America – Department of State (video statements)
“We have democracies that have elected leaders that are friendly to the United States and want to be friends with us and ally with us. We need to make sure there’s benefits to being an ally of the United States.” — Secretary of State Marco Rubio in testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations on May 21, 2025.
———-
Under the leadership of the President and Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity. On behalf of the American people we promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.
The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.
Get updates from the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov and on social media!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/statedept
X: https://x.com/StateDept
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/statedept
Flickr: https://flickr.com/photos/statephotos/
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/StateDept
Substack: https://statedept.substack.com
Watch on-demand State Department videos: https://video.state.gov/
Subscribe to The Week at State e-newsletter: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USSTATEBPA/signup/32562
State Department website: https://www.state.gov/
Careers website: https://careers.state.gov/
White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Terms of Use: https://state.gov/tou
WASHINGTON — Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX) introduced the Critical Businesses Preparedness Act, legislation that provides a 30% federal tax credit for critical businesses that purchase and install electric generators in high-risk disaster areas.
“When Hurricane Beryl hit last year, communities across Montgomery, Liberty, and San Jacinto Counties were left without power for days,”said Congressman Luttrell.“Families couldn’t get gas, groceries, or medical care. “The lessons from Beryl and other natural disasters across the country are clear: We must harden our communities, not just react to emergencies after they happen. This bill empowers local businesses to keep their doors open and their communities running so people aren’t left in the dark or out in the cold next time.”
The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code to support businesses that are essential to emergency response and recovery. Under the bill, the tax credit would apply to generators placed in service by businesses operating in areas deemed at high risk for hurricanes or flooding, as determined by FEMA.
Eligible businesses include, but are not limited to:
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressmen Andrew Garbarino (R-NY-02) and Mike Quigley (D-IL-05) introduced theWildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025, legislation to support federal law enforcement in combating wildlife trafficking and ensure the proper placement and care of confiscated live animals.
From 2015 to 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) handled 834 live wildlife interdiction cases, involving nearly 49,000 individual animals—an average of nearly 30 per day. Many of these animals require immediate medical care, secure quarantine, and long-term placement, often beyond the capacity of U.S. ports of entry.
The USFWS and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) launched a limited pilot Wildlife Confiscations Network in Southern California in 2023. While the pilot has helped coordinate placement in more than 135 cases and provided care for over 4,100 animals, its scope remains geographically narrow and operationally constrained. TheWildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025 would build on this initial framework and expand the program nationwide—ensuring law enforcement agencies across the country can access a coordinated, professional network of care for confiscated wildlife.
“Our border agents and federal inspectors work tirelessly to stop illegal wildlife trafficking, but they lack the resources and infrastructure to properly care for seized animals,” said Rep. Garbarino.“This bill will strengthen the federal response, relieve logistical burdens on law enforcement, and ensure that trafficked animals are treated humanely and professionally.”
“The Wildlife Confiscations Network has already placed over 4,100 confiscated animals into quality facilities,” said Rep. Quigley. “I am proud to introduce legislation that expands this law enforcement network nationwide, ensuring that law enforcement officers are not unduly placed in harms way, and animals receive the care they need.”
Specifically, theWildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025would:
Establish a Wildlife Confiscations Network within the Department of the Interior, in partnership with a professional zoological accrediting association;
Create a voluntary, nationwide program to coordinate the placement and care of confiscated wildlife seized at U.S. borders and ports of entry;
Designate a single point of contact to assist federal law enforcement in placement coordination;
Maintain a database of qualified facilities—including zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries, rescues, and rehabilitation centers—that can provide immediate and long-term care;
Create a review committee to evaluate applications from facilities seeking to join the Network;
Authorize $5 million annually from FY2026 to FY2030 to implement and operate the Network.
The bill is endorsed by 58 leading organizations across the conservation and zoological community, including the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Wildlife Conservation Society, National Aquarium, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, and Biologists Without Borders. Other supporters include Akron Zoological Park, Amphibian and Reptile Conservancy, Birmingham Zoo, Brookfield Zoo Chicago, California Academy of Sciences, Center for Great Apes, Charles Paddock Zoo, Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Dallas Zoo, Dazzle Africa, Delaware Zoological Society, Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance, Detroit Zoological Society, Fresno Chaffee Zoo, Great Plains Zoo, Houston Zoo, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Jenkinson’s Aquarium, Lee G. Simmons Wildlife Safari Park, Lemur Conservation Foundation, Lincoln Park Zoo, The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Lockwood Animal Rescue Center, Louisville Zoo, Museum of Life and Science, Nashville Zoo, Niabi Zoo, Northwest Trek Wildlife Park, Oakland Zoo, Oklahoma City Zoo and Botanical Garden, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Oregon Coast Aquarium, Oregon Zoo, Philadelphia Zoo, The Phoenix Zoo, Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium, Racine Zoo, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Saint Louis Zoo, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, San Francisco Zoological Society, Santa Barbara Zoo, SEE Turtles, Sequoia Park Zoo, Tennessee Aquarium, Turtle Conservancy, Wild Tomorrow Fund, Inc., Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Defense, Wildlife Jewels, Woodland Park Zoo, Zoo Atlanta, and Zoo Knoxville.
“We are grateful to Congressmen Garbarino and Quigley for sponsoring the Wildlife Confiscations Network Act,”said Dan Ashe, president and CEO for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.“This bill will allow an already proven program to go national, permitting law enforcement officers at the border to focus on catching criminals and curbing wildlife trafficking, while our expert Wildlife Confiscation Network partners provide emergency medical treatment, critical rehabilitation, and new homes focused on the wellbeing of these confiscated, and often traumatized, animals. When law enforcement and animal experts collaborate, we can put the criminals behind bars, help rehabilitate the animal victims of wildlife trafficking that are ripped from their homes, and reduce the impact on wild populations of threatened and endangered species. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums looks forward to working with Congress to pass this important bill.”
The public is invited to learn more and provide feedback about the replacement for the George Massey Tunnel and how environmental impacts during construction will be managed now that the application for the project’s environmental assessment certificate has been submitted.
To ensure construction of the new tunnel begins as soon as possible, construction-level project design is underway now.
People are invited to provide feedback to the Environmental Assessment Office on the application to ensure it includes all the studies and information required to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of the project. The public comment period runs from May 22, 2025, until June 23, 2025.
The new toll-free tunnel will include three travel lanes and one dedicated transit lane in each direction, improving travel times for transit and drivers along Highway 99. When complete, it is expected that drivers will travel at speeds of approximately 80 km/h along the corridor, compared to 30 km/h today. The tunnel will also include a dedicated multi-use pathway that will allow walking and cycling across the river at this location for the first time.
In advance of the new eight-lane tunnel’s construction, corridor improvements continue along Highway 99. These include replacement of the Steveston Highway Crossing with a new five-lane interchange. The first half of the new interchange is open to vehicles, with the second half under construction. The new interchange will be completed later in 2025.
The Province has also started preliminary work to expand Highway 99 between Westminster Highway and Steveston Highway, with the placement of preload complete.
People can learn more about the project and the environmental assessment process by attending a public open house:
Wednesday, June 4, 2025 Delta Hotels Vancouver Delta/Cascadia Casino and Conference Centre 6005 Highway 17A Delta 4-8 p.m.
Thursday, June 5, 2025 UBC Boathouse 7277 River Rd. Richmond 4-8 p.m.
Project team members and Environmental Assessment Office staff will be available at the sessions to provide information and answer questions about the project and the environmental assessment process. Feedback can be provided online here: https://engage.eao.gov.bc.ca/FraserTunnel-AR.
Learn More:
For more information on environmental assessments, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments
For more information on the Fraser River Tunnel assessment, visit: https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/620aa098fd30c700220f2805/project-details
For more information on the Highway 99 Tunnel Program, visit: www.highway99tunnel.ca
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Austin Scott (GA-08)
WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Austin Scott (GA-08) today released the following statement after House passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act:
“Early this morning, the House passed One Big Beautiful Bill with my support. This legislation includes the first updated reference prices for our farmers since 2018, which is a huge and overdue relief for the agricultural industry.
Vital tax relief for all Americans was in this legislation, including my provision to give some tax relief to combat-disabled Purple Heart recipients so they are not penalized for re-entering the workforce by giving them a one-year tax credit to make up for any loss of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits that they are entitled to.
This bill is a victory for America’s farmers, veterans, and taxpayers, and I urge the Senate to pass it quickly,” Rep. Scott said.
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services – 3
For Immediate Release: May 22, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued General Correspondence Letters to two third-party testing companies in China after discovering data that was falsified or otherwise found to be invalid. “Let me be clear. The FDA has no room for bad actors. Once we discover data integrity issues, we will respond accordingly,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. “Such false and shoddy activity jeopardizes access to new devices for patients and healthcare providers, negatively impacts product sponsors, and potentially disrupts the medical device supply chain.” The General Correspondence Letters were sent to Mid-Link Technology Testing Co., Ltd. (“Mid-Link”) in Tianjin, China, and Sanitation & Environment Technology Institute of Soochow University Ltd. (dba “SDWH”) in Suzhou, China. The letters stated in part, that because the FDA could not ensure the reliability and validity of biocompatibility testing and animal safety and performance testing studies conducted at their respective testing facilities, the agency will reject those testing facilities’ data generated for use in premarket device submissions.“The FDA is committed to working with the medical device industry to remain vigilant in protecting the public health, including proactive practices in ensuring the data that sponsors include in medical device submissions are truthful and accurate,” said CDRH Director Michelle Tarver, M.D., Ph.D. “Until the two firms have adequately addressed these issues, all study data from all studies conducted at these testing facilities will be rejected.” Accurate study data in a premarket submission is essential so that the FDA has the ability to fully and properly assess the overall safety and effectiveness of a device. Data that are copied from the results of another study, or are otherwise falsified or invalid, raise concerns about the reliability and validity of associated premarket submissions, which could ultimately put the public health at risk. Medical device sponsors contract with third-party companies to conduct performance, biocompatibility, and other product tests. The resulting data are included in marketing submissions to the FDA. However, unreliable data cannot be used to support the agency’s authorization decision. The General Correspondence Letters are the latest step taken by the FDA to address concerns around testing data and the broader issue surrounding the integrity of data coming from foreign countries. In September 2024, the FDA sent Mid-Link and SDWH warning letters citing both for laboratory oversight failures and animal care violations that raised concerns about the quality and integrity of data generated by the labs. Last year, the FDA alerted the medical device industry to concerns regarding data from third-party testing labs, including those based in China, and stressed the need for firms to carefully review any data from testing that the firm itself did not perform. Related Information
Related Information
Consumer:888-INFO-FDA
###
Boilerplate
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, radiation-emitting electronic products, and for regulating tobacco products.
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Backlog is down 25% under second Trump Administration
WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs announced today that its disability benefits compensation claims backlog is under 200,000 for the first time since March 5, 2023.
A VA claim is considered backlogged once it has been pending for more than 125 days. Since President Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20, the backlog has dropped from 264,717 to 198,378, a 25% reduction.
The backlog reduction VA announced today was made possible through a series of record-breaking production milestones, including:
Processing a million disability claims during a fiscal year faster than ever before.
The highest monthly production rate in VA history in April, with 256,178 claims processed.
The highest daily production rate in VA history May 20, with over 15,000 claims processed.
“Under President Trump, VA’s claims processing productivity is the highest it has ever been, and we will continue working overtime on behalf of Veterans until the backlog is at record lows,” said VA Secretary Doug Collins. “Veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve timely and accurate claims decisions, and that is exactly what we will deliver.”
Backlog Background Info
The Biden Administration oversaw a 24% increase in the backlog, from 213,189 on Jan. 20, 2021, to 264,717 on Jan. 20, 2025.
VA’s backlog reached its highest point ever of 611,000 in March of 2013.
VA achieved its lowest backlog ever of 64,738 in December of 2019.
Reporters and media outlets with questions or comments should contact the Office of Media Relations at vapublicaffairs@va.gov
Veterans with questions about their health care and benefits (including GI Bill). Questions, updates and documents can be submitted online.
Contact us online through Ask VA
Veterans can also use our chatbot to get information about VA benefits and services. The chatbot won’t connect you with a person, but it can show you where to go on VA.gov to find answers to some common questions.
Learn about our chatbot and ask a question
Subscribe today to receive these news releases in your inbox.
Headline: Why Alberta—and all of Canada—need energy storage
Energy storage is transforming the way we manage electricity.
By Vittoria Bellissimo, President & CEO, Canadian Renewable Energy Association
There has never been a better time for Alberta—and all of Canada—to invest in energy storage.
Alberta is currently redesigning its electricity market and transmission policy to deliver more affordable, reliable, clean power to Albertans like me, and energy storage is a key technology that can help us do that.
That’s why CanREA put together an entire Summit to look at the important role of energy storage in Alberta. We will get updates directly from the source on where Alberta is heading and explore all the ways we can help make our electricity system successful, with a clear focus on energy storage.
Why energy storage?
Energy storage is transforming the way we manage electricity—it’s about making our systems smarter, cleaner, and more reliable. With costs dropping significantly, it’s becoming more accessible than ever, providing essential market, grid and flexibility services. The future of energy is here, and I couldn’t be more excited about what’s ahead.
Worldwide, we are adopting various energy-storage solutions, including batteries, hydrogen, pumped hydro, compressed air, flywheels, and thermal storage.
While lithium-ion batteries are widely recognized, energy storage goes far beyond them. Innovation is driving new technologies, and companies are deploying advanced systems to strengthen our electricity systems. And the costs are falling fast, making energy storage appealing to ratepayers.
These technologies allow us to save electricity, or time-shift for future use, helping ensure reliable power. It can also provide other services the grid needs: peak demand management, renewable energy integration, ancillary services, grid stability, frequency regulation, backup power and resilience, and transmission & distribution “non-wires” alternatives.
In Canada, new energy storage projects—propelled by Indigenous equity partners—are reaching commercial operation ahead of schedule and under budget, showcasing impressive potential for growth in the industry.
Photo: In less than 15 years, battery costs have fallen by more than 90%, one of the fastest declines ever seen in clean energy technologies. Source: IEA (2024), Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/batteries-and-secure-energy-transitions, Licence: CC BY 4.0
Enter CanREA’s Summit
Last year, CanREA kicked off our inaugural Energy Storage Alberta—CanREA Summit 2024 with an expectation of just 75 participants eager for some very nerdy discussion on this very important topic.
Our overall aim was to answer a few key questions: Are we set up for policy, regulatory and market success for energy storage in Alberta? And if not, what do we need to get there?
The answers were lengthy, but in short: we were not quite set up yet—and we still aren’t!—but it was 100% clear that energy storage can provide enormous value to our electricity system. We need to develop viable revenue streams for storage, and reduce the current market, policy and regulatory barriers to make it possible to finance new projects. It turned out that we underestimated the interest in our first Summit: Nearly 200 people attended, with excitement building around prospective projects.
This year, we found a bigger room and invited keynote speakers—Alberta Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) CEO Aaron Engen, Innovative Research Group founder and President Greg Lyle—and a curated cast of industry experts.
This will be our second annual adventure in getting the conditions right for energy storage in Alberta. We are so pleased with the calibre of our presenters, and grateful that they are spending their time and energy with CanREA’s members and Summit participants.
Key Summit topics
This year, we want to examine both how to get storage built AND how to operate it efficiently once it is in service. I’ve mentioned the keynotes, now here are the topics we plan to address:
What will the new electricity market and transmission policy look like, and how can energy storage navigate both?
How can energy storage help supply Alberta’s growing population and industries—including data centres?
What are the main barriers to building energy storage in Alberta, and how do we break them down?
What can we learn from the global experience in energy storage?
What are the latest advancements and innovations in energy storage, and how could they apply to Alberta’s electricity system?
Join me at Energy Storage Alberta 2025
It is a privilege to work in the renewable energy and energy storage sector in what is arguably the most exciting time in history to be doing so.
As electricity demand escalates, global supply chains evolve, and the urgency for flexible, scalable, climate-resilient infrastructure intensifies, the power sector and energy storage have never been more crucial.
I’m looking forward to continuing CanREA’s work to encourage energy storage in Alberta. See you in Calgary on June 3! Check out the details for Energy Storage Alberta—CanREA Summit 2025 here.
The post Why Alberta—and all of Canada—need energy storage appeared first on Canadian Renewable Energy Association.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) penned this op-ed in the Washington Examiner to explain why Congress should pass the EDUCATE Act to prevent medical schools from prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) over merit.
Key excerpts of the op-ed are below:
“When patients lie on the operating table, they don’t care what their doctors look like or which political parties they support. They just want a safe and successful operation.
“Many medical schools, however, apparently believe that patients have the wrong priority. These universities place diversity, equity, and inclusion above all else, even if it means worse outcomes for patients. This obsession with racial quotas is destroying some of America’s best medical schools.”
. . .
“The U.S. is home to the most gifted and innovative doctors on Earth, and it’s not by happenstance. We sought them out by making medical school one of the most impressive, merit-based institutions in our country.
“It’s wrong for universities, which are supported by American taxpayers, to prioritize the DEI agenda over merit in any academic program, but it’s lethal to do this in medical schools. It needs to stop. There is no reward for being stupid.
“Congress should not stand by as this dangerous foolishness drives more medical schools into the ground.”
Read Kennedy and Murphy’s full op-ed here.
Text of the EDUCATE Act is available here.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and 15 colleagues in introducing a resolution honoring the brave men and women of the U.S. Border Control for their service to our country ahead of the agency’s 101st anniversary.
“We owe the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol a debt of gratitude for all they do to secure our border and keep Americans safe. I’m proud to join my colleagues in honoring these brave and effective officials on their 101st anniversary,” said Kennedy.
The senators’ resolution:
Supports policies that improve Border Patrol agents’ working conditions, including increasing access to key technology and equipment needed to secure the border, and better the agency’s ability to recruit, hire and retain agents.
Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) also cosponsored the resolution.
The full resolution is available here.
Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven
05.22.25
Senator Discusses Need for More Competitive & Transparent Cattle Market, Urges Nominee to Push Back on Barriers to U.S. Beef Exports
WASHINGTON – At a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee this week, Senator John Hoeven discussed efforts to strengthen market opportunities for the nation’s cattle industry. With Mr. Dudley Hoskins, the nominee to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Hoeven outlined the need to:
Fully enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act to help ensure more competitive and transparent cattle markets.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Hoeven has worked to provide additional funding for the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to enforce the law and investigate anti-competitive practices.
Hoskins highlighted the Cattle Contract Library pilot program that Hoeven established as an example of how to create greater price transparency for cattle producers.
Secure fair access to foreign markets for U.S. beef producers and push back against artificial barriers impacting U.S. exports.
“There is a real need for greater price discovery in cattle markets, which would provide our ranchers with more transparency and access to a more competitive market. That’s a win for both producers and consumers,” said Hoeven “Between our efforts to ensure enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, advance my Cattle Contract Library pilot program and reinstate MCOOL, we’re working to strengthen the U.S. domestic cattle market. At the same time, we need to remove artificial trade barriers used to block U.S. livestock producers from accessing foreign markets. That’s why we support the Trump administration as it works to secure better trade deals for U.S. ag producers. We look forward to working with Mr. Hoskins to continue advancing these priorities.”
In addition, Hoeven invited Dr. Scott Hutchins, the nominee to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics, to visit North Dakota to learn firsthand about:
The state’s leadership in precision agriculture technology development, including the innovative work occurring under the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) partnership at Grand Farm.
The Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC) that Hoeven has worked to stand up at North Dakota State University (NDSU). The center will:
Help address farm and agribusiness challenges through in-depth policy and economic analysis.
• • Complement the work conducted at similar centers currently housed at the University of Missouri, Texas A&M University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) has introduced three bipartisan bills in recent days focused on strengthening U.S. nuclear energy policy and international collaboration. The legislation focuses on enhancing civil nuclear exports, financing, and streamlining the nuclear licensing process to reduce red tape.
“To lower costs for consumers and combat climate change, the U.S. and the rest of the world need to be able to rely on sources of clean and abundant power, including nuclear energy,” said Senator Coons. “Right now, however, barriers that we have erected for domestic and international nuclear development stunt our energy independence here at home and give China and Russia the upper hand abroad. I’m pushing for these three bills because I know how important it is for the United States to on the cutting edge of clean, safe, affordable nuclear power.”
The three bills Senator Coons has introduced are:
The Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act with Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), which would remove the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) mandatory hearing requirement created by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 without limiting opportunities for public engagement in order to enhance and boost the efficiency of the NRC in reviewing new reactor applications. The text of the bill is available here.
The International Nuclear Energy Act with Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), which would support the U.S. domestic nuclear energy industry’s leadership and offset China’s and Russia’s growing influence on international nuclear energy development. The bill would create an office to coordinate nuclear export strategies and financing, promoting regulatory harmonization and standardization, and enhancing safeguards and security. The bill would also form programs to support international nuclear energy collaboration and calls for a cabinet-level biennial summit focused on nuclear safety along with industry and government relationships. The text of the bill is available here.
The International Nuclear Energy Financing Act with Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), which would encourage more financing for nuclear energy projects to create more U.S. jobs. The legislation would do this by empowering the Treasury to leverage its influence to ensure that international financial institutions support U.S. nuclear exports. The text of the bill is available here.
Senator Coons is a Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus.
Source: United States Senator for Utah Mike Lee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the bipartisan Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act today with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) to protect agricultural producers and cut government waste by enforcing transparency in checkoff programs. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cosponsored the legislation.
“America’s farmers are being ripped off by federal checkoff programs that take farmers’ money and play favorites with who they serve,” said Senator Mike Lee. “These programs have a reputation for hurting farmers through financial fraud and deceptive practices. The OFF Act will implement accountability measures to cut waste, enforce transparency, and ensure that our farmers get the services they pay for.”
“America’s farmers and ranchers deserve accountability and transparency when it comes to how their checkoff dollars are being spent,” said Senator Booker. “Checkoff dollars too often get channeled to lobbying groups who advocate against the best interests of many of the farmers who are required to pay into the program. This bipartisan bill will prohibit conflicts of interest and anti-competitive practices in these checkoff programs and will ensure that these programs work better for our farmers and ranchers.”
“We must change the agricultural checkoff programs that put money in the hands of corporate lobbyists at the expense of farmers and ranchers,” said Senator Warren. “The OFF Act will put commonsense safeguards in place to ensure accountability and transparency for our farmers.”
The OFF Act is endorsed by organizations representing over 200,000 American farmers and ranchers.
“We commend Senators Booker and Lee for their important work on fighting for fairness in the Beef Checkoff,” said United States Cattlemen’s Association President Justin Tupper. “USCA looks forward to this bill preserving the original intent of the Checkoff and implementing more transparency and accountability. The Checkoff must work for cattle producers who both support and benefit from it.”
“America’s farmers and ranchers are fed up with their hard-earned money landing in the hands of corporate lobbyists,” said Farm Action Fund President and Missouri farmer Joe Maxwell. “We face enough hurdles as it is; the last thing we need is our own dollars extracted against our will and then used to illegally lobby on behalf of the largest corporations that are already squeezing us out of the market. It’s the USDA’s job to prevent this abuse, and they continue to fail us. The OFF Act’s common-sense reforms would ensure USDA performs stringent oversight so that farmers know exactly where their money is going.”
“We are grateful to Senator Lee and Senator Booker for their work to bring accountability and transparency to the beef checkoff program and to recognize that the cattle and beef production systems in the USA are not one size fits all,” said Carrie Balkcom, Executive Director, American Grassfed Association. “The OFF act will allow cattle and beef producers of all production methods to be served by the dollars that they pay into the system.”
“We applaud this bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Booker and Senator Lee to bring needed transparency and accountability to the antiquated beef checkoff program that has long been used to undermine the interests of America’s independent cattle producers,” said Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA.
“We applaud the Members of Congress for their longterm leadership and for introducing the bipartisan, bicameral OFF Act and call on both the House and Senate Agriculture Committee leaders to stand up for American family farmers by moving this legislation swiftly through their committees,” said Taylor Haynes, President of the Organization for Competitive Markets. “If we’re going to be forced to pay into USDA’s checkoff programs then the very least we should expect is transparency, accountability, and oversight of our hard-earned dollars, and the OFF Act accomplishes just that.”
“Scandal after scandal has proven the longterm corruption in the beef, dairy, and pork checkoff programs that continue to utilize our own tax dollars against us and the day of reckoning is here,” said Mike Schultz, Founder of the Kansas Cattlemen’s Association and Vice-President at the Organization for Competitive Markets. “American family farmers are up in arms and are determined to see justice in the 119th Congress with the enactment of the OFF Act. Clean up decades of corruption.”
Background:
Under checkoff programs, farmers, producers, importers, and other stakeholders in the marketing chain join together to pool resources, advancing demand for their products through marketing and research. Slogans like “Got Milk?” and “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner,” are the result of checkoff program marketing campaigns that allowed agricultural producers to access large-scale advertising by promoting their product categories as a whole without individual branding. These campaigns are directed by multiple boards and are funded by checkoff dollars, which stakeholders pay through regular business activities.
Unfortunately, some checkoff programs have exhibited fraudulent and unethical behavior. One investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that a subcontractor organization had used checkoff program funding to award its employees unauthorized bonuses totaling approximately $302,000 – then requested further funds to remedy its poor financial situation. More recent audits reveal the USDA’s oversight of checkoff programs still needs improvement.
The Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act would:
Prohibit checkoff boards with an annual assessment revenue of over $20 million from entering into contracts to carry out checkoff activities with parties that also work to influence government policy.
Exempt institutions of higher education.
Prohibit board members and employees of checkoff programs from engaging in any act that may involve a conflict of interest.
Prohibit engagement in anticompetitive activity, deceptive practices, or disparaging practice.
Require that contracts entered into by the board be recorded to describe goods and services provided/costs incurred.
Require checkoff boards to publicize a transparent budget.
Require periodic audits of checkoff boards by the Inspector General of USDA.
Require periodic audits of checkoff boards by the Comptroller General.
PROVIDENCE, RI � On Monday, May 19, 2025, Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore honored the 130 high school students selected as 2025 Rhode Island Civic Leadership Award winners at a State House ceremony. The award is given annually to high school students who have made outstanding contributions to their schools and communities over the past year.
“Every year, it’s a great honor to celebrate students who are committed to public service and civic engagement,” said Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore. “These young civic leaders deserve recognition for their accomplishments inside and outside of the classroom, as well as their efforts to make their communities a better place.”
Schools from around Rhode Island nominated students who have excelled in areas such as public service, leadership, and academic achievement.
Photos of award winners are available here.
The ceremony was recorded by Capitol TV and can be viewed online here.
The students honored were:
Achievement First Providence High School Alejandra Guissell Avila Estrada Zachareus Desrosiers
Barrington Christian Academy Polly Bosch Lincoln Wright
Barrington High School Anaaya Deshpande Andres Gil
Beacon Charter High School for the Arts Kiara Canterbury Micah St. Onge
Bishop Hendricken High School Shane Ciunci Lincoln Tiernan
Blackstone Academy Charter School Kadjatou Diallo Jayilson Fernandes
Blackstone Valley Prep High School Safiyatu Gassama Angel Hernandez
Block Island School Chase Hatfield Maximus Walsh
Burrillville High School Spencer Wayland Arrow Yuszczak
Central Falls Senior High School Edgar Ardon Flores Sofia Lopez Callejas
Chariho Regional High School Ryan Sheldon Nicholas Wilusz
Charles E. Shea High School Joseph Manu Behnema Sirleaf
Coventry High School Raegan Garcia Ryan Pina
Cranston High School East Oliver Cruz Madelyn Hart
Cranston High School West Sophia DiBenedetto Promise Pitts
Cumberland High School Brett Hawkins Brody Vroegindewey
Dr. Jorge Alvarez High School Yazan Alothman Emma Garcia
East Greenwich High School Emma Sheahan-Nguyen Wen Xin Shi
East Providence High School Pooja Ezhilmaran Acadia Ullucci
E-Cubed Academy August Kletzian Melissa Paula
Exeter-West Greenwich Regional High School Ayden Enos Clare Titus
The Greene School Adriel Falowo Kyannie Fernandez
Hope High School Julian Genao Elmer Poz Benito
Jacqueline M. Walsh School for the Performing & Visual Arts Isabella Benavides Melissa Paulin
Johnston Senior High School Olivia Forgetta Bennett McClish
La Salle Academy Derek La Fazia Carter Rankin
Lincoln School Ruby Verkuijlen
Lincoln Senior High School Helen Green David Lucci
Middletown High School Taylor Bridges Chloe Tysor
The Metropolitan Regional Career & Technical Center Marcel Anderson Osayro Urizar Vargas
Moses Brown School Sophie Hesser Josselyn Wolf
Mount Pleasant High School Anthony Berroa Testimony Thompson
Mount Saint Charles Academy Emma Foxon Aidan Quinn
Mt. Hope High School Jessica Deal Gavin Stegall
Narragansett High School Hannah Abrams Mia DeLuise
NEL/CPS Construction & Career Academy Alfredo Cuthburt Anniyah Wright
North Kingstown Senior High School Benjamin Butera Fiona Wilk
North Providence High School Isabelle Desanges Gabriella Paulino Cabrera
North Smithfield High School Emerson Deschene Leah Goodwin
Paul Cuffee Upper School Sofia Alabede Mia Medeiros
Pilgrim High School Laryssa Farrell Sean Skinnard
Ponaganset High School Mackenzie Bell Omar Sasa
Portsmouth High School Andrew Rodrigues Hanalei Streuli
The Prout School Madeline Monaco Madeleine Pisano
Providence Country Day School Cedric Ye
Rhode Island Nurses Institute Middle College Charter High School Aillyn Ospina Bedoya Lia Tavarez Sobalvarro
Rocky Hill Country Day School Wilbur Conterio Luke Lehouiller
Rogers High School Hannah Conroy Kira Parsons
School One Ibrahim Mohammed Sienna Wills
Scituate High School Annette Hartley Cameron Healey
Sheila Skip Nowell Leadership Academy Jaziyah Lewis Zi’Rell Rivers
Smithfield Senior High School Kyla Alberg Shane Trainor
South Kingstown High School Samuel Cadman Jay Thornber
St. Andrew’s School Yosmel Amparo-Moya Violet Vandale
St. George’s School Reese Starling
St. Mary Academy – Bay View Ariana Bobiak Sophie Sullivan
St. Patrick Academy Genesis Monzon Morales Ashly Urbina
Saint Raphael Academy Michael Duschang Sara Lebeuf
Tiverton High School Evan Duda Norah Winslow
Toll Gate High School Jaylene Le Estherangelica Santana
Trinity Academy for the Performing Arts Samia Perez Wilde Rosales-Gousie
Trinity Christian Academy Mateo Ghoshal Vargas Michael Susi
Village Green Virtual Charter School Zoey Dupuis Nyzaiah Law
Warwick Area Career and Technical Center Gianna Gioffreda
West Warwick Senior High School Michael Andruchow Lucas Martins
William E. Tolman Senior High School Melissa Gomes-Ramos Danicah Xavier
SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the state will file a lawsuit as Republicans in the U.S. Senate target California’s clean vehicles program.
“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”
“This Senate vote is illegal,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”
Background
Under the direction of President Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transmitted three California waivers – for the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Omnibus and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulations – to Congress as rules subject to Congressional Review Act (CRA) procedures. Earlier in the month, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives illegally used the CRA to attempt to undo these waivers, which authorize California’s clean cars and trucks regulations. This move breaks with decades of bipartisan recognition that these waivers are not “rules” subject to the CRA and directly contradicts the determinations of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian, both of whom concluded that the CRA’s process does not apply to California’s waivers.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, California may adopt emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements, absent certain limited circumstances not present here.
For more than 50 years, California has exercised its right under the Clean Air Act to pursue solutions that address the persistent air pollution challenges that our state faces.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Hillary Scholten – Michigan
WASHINGTON, DC– Today, during a Rules Committee hearing that began at 1 a.m., U.S. Congresswoman Hillary Scholten (MI-03) introduced several critical amendments, including to protect affordable health care for millions of Americans and funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As House Republicans push forward a budget proposal that would slash nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid, gut food assistance, threaten our Great Lakes and drive up costs for hard-working families, Scholten offered a starkly different approach–one focused on protecting coverage and lowering premiums.
“There’s so much that’s harmful in this bill–but let’s focus on health care. Republicans are trying to take health care away from people while they sleep and they are hoping no one notices,” said Rep. Scholten. “But I am paying attention, and I’m offering a better path forward–one that protects families and ensures affordable health care is not just a luxury for the wealthy.”
WATCH: Rep. Scholten delivers remarks at all night Rules Committee Hearing
Her amendment would make the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies permanent. These subsidies, which have helped drive the uninsured rate to historic lows, are set to expire on December 31, 2025–putting more than 4.2 million people at risk of losing coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Scholten’s amendment eliminates the income cap that currently cuts off eligibility at 400% of the federal poverty line and maintains a cap on premium contributions so that no family pays more than 8.5% of their income toward health insurance. These provisions help ensure that working-class and middle-class Americans, including small business owners, self-employed workers, and families in the coverage gap, can continue to access affordable care.
In Michigan, over 374,000 people rely on these enhanced subsidies for their coverage. If allowed to expire, many of these families would face unaffordable premium hikes or lose insurance altogether. Scholten emphasized that while Republicans are focused on ripping coverage away from children, seniors, and people with disabilities, she’s focused on keeping and expanding coverage. Her amendment offers a responsible, proven solution to keep people covered.
In addition to her health care amendment, Scholten introduced three others focused on protecting Michigan jobs, clean water, and American clean energy leadership. One amendment would protect Michigan’s intercity passenger rail project between Grand Rapids and Chicago by preventing the Secretary of Transportation from prematurely removing projects from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Corridor Identification and Development Program.
Scholten also introduced an amendment that would fund the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional clean water programs–including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative–which is vital to Michigan’s economy and environment and yields more than triple the return on investment.
Finally, Scholten proposed extending the Section 48 Investment Tax Credit for clean energy projects through the end of 2025 to ensure regulatory certainty and continued investment in renewable natural gas systems, especially those critical to rural and agricultural communities.
Through all of these efforts, Rep. Scholten reaffirmed her commitment to fighting for hard-working families.
Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell
Washington, D.C. –U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the National Guard and Reserves Forces”:
“We’ll begin today’s hearing to receive testimony on the posture of the National Guard Bureau and Reserve Components. I’d like to start by thanking the witnesses:
“General Steven Nordhaus, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General Robert Harter, the Chief of Army Reserve; My understanding is that Vice Admiral Lacore is unable to testify this morning due to an illness — I hope she recovers quickly.
I welcome Rear Admiral Luke Frost – Director, Reserve Warfare, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in her absence;
“Lieutenant General Loni Anderson, the Commander of Marine Forces Reserve; and Lieutenant General John Healy, the Chief of Air Force Reserve.
“The Subcommittee is grateful for your service to the nation in uniform, and we’ll look forward to your candid testimony.
“Our discussion today will be oriented toward the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026.
“The exact details of the request are still to come, but the topline summary released by the Office of Management and Budget gives proponents of robust national defense plenty to be concerned about, already.
“Annual topline investment in the Department of Defense is a measure of national will. It sends a message to allies and adversaries, alike, about the strength of our resolve. And it appears that the message for the coming year is one of weakness.
“Nobody in this room needs a reminder of how much the Department relies on stable and predictable funding to drive the crucial functions of development, acquisitions, and procurement. Nor is anyone here naïve to the increasingly coordinated forces that threaten to undermine U.S. interests around the world.
“But when we talk about the consequences of short-changing our armed forces, we have to recognize that these effects are often compounded for the guard and reserve.
“And the harder we have to scrape for funding to meet unfunded requirements of the Department of Defense, the harder it will be to support the growing needs of the Guard and Reserve.
“Despite playing an increasingly significant operational role, guard and reserve units still struggle to access top-of-the-line kit. Despite so often taking the lead in engagement with allied and partner forces, they face persistent hurdles in maintaining adequate infrastructure, equipment, and personnel.
The current strategic landscape and operational realities give us no reason to suspect that the demand for highly-trained, well-equipped citizen servicemembers will diminish anytime soon.
“Last year, it was guardsmen – including Kentuckians – defending Tower 22 from Iran-backed attack, and sustaining casualties in the process.
“Adding new missions without adequate resourcing can strain Guard units’ training calendars.
“I’ll be interested in the witnesses’ candid observations on these headwinds impacting readiness. And I’ll look forward to discussing them in more detail during the question and answer session.”
