NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Child Poverty

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pfluger Introduces Resolution to Honor First Lady Barbara Bush’s 100th Birthday

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

    Click HERE to read the Resolution, or read the full text below.

    Recognizing the life, achievements, and public service of former First Lady Barbara Pierce Bush on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

    Whereas, on June 8, 1925, Barbara Pierce Bush (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Barbara Bush’’) was born in New York City, New York;

    Whereas Barbara Bush attended Ashley Hall and Smith College;

    Whereas Barbara Bush worked a factory job to support the United States war effort during World War II in 1943;

    Whereas, on January 6, 1945, Barbara Bush married George Herbert Walker Bush after he returned from serving in World War II;

    Whereas, in 1948, Barbara Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush moved to Odessa, Texas, and had 6 children, George W., Robin, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy;

    Whereas Barbara Bush supported the early business ventures of her husband in oil, which would later evolve into the Pennzoil Corporation;

    Whereas Barbara Bush supported the first forays of her husband in politics during his 1963 Harris County Republican Party chairmanship and 1966 election to the House of Representatives in the 7th Congressional District of Texas;

    Whereas Barbara Bush kept the constituents in Houston informed of happenings in Washington, DC, by writing frequent newspaper columns during the time George Herbert Walker Bush served in the House of Representatives;

    Whereas, during the career of George Herbert Walker Bush before becoming President of the United States, Barbara Bush orchestrated cross-country moves for her family 29 times in 44 years;

    Whereas Barbara Bush supported the political ascension of George Herbert Walker Bush during his appointments as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations in 1970, the Chair of the Republican National Committee in 1972, and the Director of Central Intelligence in 1976;

    Whereas Barbara Bush became Second Lady of the United States when George Herbert Walker Bush was sworn in as the 43rd Vice President of the United States in 1981, and again in 1985 after the 1984 re-election of the Reagan-Bush Administration;

    Whereas, as Second Lady of the United States, Barbara Bush revitalized the vice-presidential residence at 1 Observatory Circle with extensive renovations and the hosting of more than 1,000 social events;

    Whereas, as Second Lady of the United States, Barbara Bush used her platform in the Reagan-Bush administration to champion public literacy to combat the cycle of poverty in the United States;

    Whereas, as Second Lady of the United States, Barbara Bush played a significant role in the successful presidential campaign of George Herbert Walker Bush, which saw him win the 1988 Presidential election with 426 electoral votes, a feat which has not been matched since;

    Whereas, as First Lady of the United States, Barbara Bush continued to champion public literacy by establishing the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy in 1989, and played a significant role in the passage of the National Literacy Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–73; 105 Stat. 333);

    Whereas, as First Lady of the United States, Barbara Bush showed immense compassion to AIDS patients at a time when public opinion was still hostile towards their plight;

    Whereas, after leaving the White House, Barbara Bush published her bestselling book, ‘‘Barbara Bush: A Memoir’’;

    Whereas, after the victory of her son George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election, Barbara Bush became the second woman in the history of the United States to have been both married to a President of the United States and the mother of a President of the United States;

    Whereas Barbara Bush showed unwavering support for the presidential campaigns of her sons, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Jeb Bush in 2016 and;

    Whereas, on her passing at her Houston home on April 17, 2018, Barbara Bush was survived by her husband of 73 years, George Herbert Walker Bush, 5 children and their spouses, 17 grandchildren, and 8 great-grandchildren:

    Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress—(1) honors the life, achievements, and distinguished public service of Barbara Pierce Bush (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘Barbara Bush’’); (2) recognizes Barbara Bush on the occasion of her 100th birthday and expresses thanks and commendations to her and her family;(3) acknowledges the positive impact that Barbara Bush contributed to the United States through

    her tireless dedication to promoting literacy and uplifting her fellow citizens; and (4) celebrates the legacy of Barbara Bush as a model citizen and public servant of the United States.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson Issues Statement on the Tragic Death of CPD Officer Krystal Rivera

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Jonathan Jackson – Illinois (1st District)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    CHICAGO, IL — Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01) issued the following statement in response to the tragic death of Officer Krystal Rivera, a 6th District Chicago Police Officer who was fatally shot in the line of duty in the Chatham neighborhood:

    “I am heartbroken by the senseless and tragic loss of Officer Krystal Rivera — a courageous public servant, a devoted mother, and a beloved member of our community. My deepest prayers and condolences go out to her family, her fellow officers in the Chicago Police Department, and all who knew and cherished her.

    Officer Rivera embodied the very spirit of service, showing up each day to protect and care for the community she loved. Her life was taken far too soon in an act of violence that underscores the urgent crisis we face in Chicago and across the nation.

    We must honor her memory not only with words but with action. That means delivering swift and full justice, but also taking bold, comprehensive steps to address the root causes of violence — poverty, trauma, lack of opportunity, and the widespread availability of illegal firearms.

    No officer should lose their life while protecting our streets. No family should be forced to grieve a loved one due to preventable violence. We must move with urgency and compassion — investing in public safety, mental health services, youth programs, and economic development that strengthens our communities from the inside out.

    Officer Rivera gave her life in service to Chicago. We must ensure her sacrifice is not in vain. May she rest in peace, and may her legacy live on in the work we do to build a safer, more just city for all.”

    Congressman Jackson continues to work with local and federal partners to advance community-based safety strategies and legislation that supports law enforcement, addresses gun violence, and strengthens neighborhood resilience throughout Illinois’ 1st Congressional District.

    ####

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Plymouth welcomes expansion of Free School Meals scheme

    Source: City of Plymouth

    Plymouth City Council has welcomed the Government’s announcement that more children will benefit from free school meals at school.

    From September 2026, the Government has announced that any child whose household is on Universal Credit will be entitled to free school meals.

    Currently, children are only eligible if their household receives Universal Credit and has an annual income of less than £7,400 per year.

    The expanded eligibility will mean that more than 10,000 Plymouth children in school years 3 to 11 will be able to benefit from a free, healthy and nutritious lunch during each school day. 

    All children in Reception, Year 1 and 2 already receive universal free school meals. 

    Councillor Sally Cresswell, Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Apprenticeships, said: “This is a hugely positive step forward for children and families in Plymouth. This is about children thriving and achieving, and we know that access to a healthy, balanced meal at school can make a real difference to a child’s wellbeing, concentration, and academic performance.

    “We recognise the pressures that many households are facing and this change will help to reduce child poverty and food insecurity.

    “We’ll be working closely with our schools and catering providers to ensure that there’s a smooth and effective rollout of this policy in 2026, so that as many children as possible can benefit.”

    For more information about current free school meal eligibility and how to apply, families can visit www.plymouth.gov.uk/freeschoolmeals.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Cleaver Awarded 2025 Shirley Chisholm Award for Housing by National Urban League

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (5th District Missouri)

    Rep. Cleaver, Ranking Member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, accepted the award after decades of work to expand access to safe, decent, and affordable housing

    (Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver has been awarded the 2025 Shirley Chisholm Award for Housing by the National Urban League, given to a lawmaker whose commitment and work has expanded access to fair and affordable housing in the United States. In a ceremony this month, Cleaver accepted the prestigious award from National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial at the organization’s 2025 Empowerment Summit in Washington, DC. The National Urban League is the nation’s largest historic civil rights and urban advocacy organization.  

    “Since my first days on the City Council in Kansas City, my strongest passion and highest priority has been the work to expand housing opportunity for everyday families,” said Congressman Cleaver. “I understand what it means to live in a shack with no electricity or running water, and I know firsthand the challenges that come with America’s underinvestment in housing that is truly accessible and affordable, which is why I’ve spent my career working to protect and strengthen housing programs that serve low- and middle-income families of all backgrounds. To receive this award, named in honor of the great civil rights champion Shirley Chisholm, is extraordinarily meaningful to me. Just as her work helped pave the way for families like mine to rise out of poverty, I hope the work I’ve done in Kansas City and Washington will continue to change the trajectory of families who are every bit as deserving of the American dream.”

    Since coming to Washington, Congressman Cleaver has fought tirelessly to bring housing investments to Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District and passed multiple bipartisan overhauls of America’s federal housing programs. 

    The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 destroyed trillions in home equity and over half the wealth of the African American households in the United States. As a new member on the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Cleaver was instrumental in national recovery efforts through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, including the creation of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which helped stabilize the housing market in Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, and the Green Impact Zone, which targeted more than $125 million of federal investment into the urban core in Kansas City, MO. 

    Following the crisis, Congressman Cleaver worked on the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which included, but was not limited to, the creation of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB), tasked with protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive financial practices, including predatory mortgage lending.     

    In the 115th Congress, Cleaver was elected by his colleagues to serve as the head Democrat on the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance. As Ranking Member, Cleaver teamed up with then-Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) to co-author the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA), which introduced a massive set of changes and reforms to federal housing programs. The most sweeping housing bill in 20 years, HOTMA was passed with unanimous support by Congress and was signed into law by President Obama. 

    The following Congress, Rep. Cleaver introduced the Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act with Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) to help low-income families who rely on housing vouchers to move out of poverty and into neighborhoods with better opportunities. The legislation was passed with bipartisan support by Congress and signed into law by President Trump. 

    In the 117th Congress, Cleaver was elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance during the COVID-19 eviction and foreclosure crisis. In that capacity, Chairman Cleaver helped lead the effort to pass legislation providing federal funds to address housing and homelessness including the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which represented the largest single-year investment in preventing and ending homelessness in U.S. history. Through ARPA and other appropriations, Cleaver helped secure more than $46.6 billion in emergency rental assistance and more than $10 billion for the Homeowner Assistance Fund to ensure that families could remain safely housed. Cleaver also helped secure more than $5 billion in homelessness funds through ARPA which included, for the first time in the nation’s history, Emergency Housing Vouchers for families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Cleaver’s Stabilizing Rural Homeowners During COVID Act, which provided desperately needed assistance to families living in US Department of Agriculture-supported housing was also signed into law. 

    Cleaver also worked with the Biden Administration on key initiatives of the Administration to expand access to fair and affordable housing. In April 2021, Cleaver introduced the Real Estate Valuation Fairness and Improvement Act to address bias in home valuations. Cleaver’s legislation served as the framework for the Biden Administration’s Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE Task Force), the first-ever interagency effort to combat discrimination in the home appraisal process. In 2022, the Task Force released the PAVE Action Plan, and the Biden Administration announced the most wide-ranging actions ever taken to advance equity in the home appraisal process. 

    Cleaver also invited several members of the Biden Administration to Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District to discuss housing and other federal investments, including discussions related to Parade Park Homes. Since 2022, Cleaver has worked with US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Fudge, HUD Acting Secretary Todman, HUD officials, and local officials to stabilize the property and chart a path forward to ensure the health of residents and the community. Earlier this year, Congressman Cleaver successfully secured $15.5 million in federal grant funding to support the rehabilitation of Parade Park Home, the oldest Black-owned housing cooperative in the nation, with more than 500 affordable housing units in the heart of the 18th & Vine Jazz District.

    Last Congress, Cleaver invited Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Sandra Thompson to Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District for a convening between the FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, tenant advocates, and community leaders for in-depth discussions on issues impacting tenants in federally backed properties. Following the convening, the FHFA accepted Cleaver’s call to adopt the first-ever tenant protections for renters in multifamily properties with Enterprise-backed mortgages. Participants also heard reports of unacceptable living conditions at Independence Towers and shortly thereafter, Cleaver secured $1,350,000 from Fannie Mae to address desperately needed repairs at the apartment complex.

    Cleaver has received several awards for his work on housing, including reception of the inaugural Terwilliger Bipartisanship in Housing Award from the Bipartisan Policy Center last year. The award recognized Cleaver’s long-standing leadership and bipartisan work on housing, including on bipartisan legislation such as the Choice in Affordable Housing Act and the Rural Housing Service Reform Act. The 2025 Shirley Chisholm Award for Housing is further recognition of Cleaver’s commitment and longstanding work. 

    “In my view, access to affordable housing has the potential to open doors and unlock opportunities that allow entire families to climb the economic ladder—just like it did for mine,” said Congressman Cleaver. “I’m proud of the work I’ve done on this issue since my first days on the City Council, and I look forward to continuing this work on behalf of Missouri families in the years to come.”

    Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee’s Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Greenwood, Blue Springs, North Kansas City, Gladstone, and Claycomo. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: ASIA/SRI LANKA – Tourism is experiencing a robust recovery: the country sees the light at the end of the tunnel

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Foto di Daniel Klein su Unsplash

    Colombo (Agenzia Fides) – “Tourism in Sri Lanka is experiencing a robust recovery. This is a benefit for the entire country: we are showing the beauty of our island. We see that the general trend in the country’s economy and society is now positive. It will take some time to fully overcome the crisis of the last three years, but there are encouraging prospects,” Fr. Basel Fernando, National Director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in Sri Lanka, told Fides. According to official figures from the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority, the country will welcome a record number of visitors in 2025: 250,000 visitors in January alone, a new record, and in May 2025, tourism grew by 20% compared to the previous year. In the first five months of 2025, the authority predicts that total visitors exceed the 1 million mark, with a forecast of more than 2 million compared to the previous year. Father Fernando notes to Fides: “We are in a phase of recovery and hope, which is evident at the political, social, and economic levels,” Father Fernando continued. “The new president, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, elected last fall, has a large majority in parliament; the people supported him primarily to stop corruption. The serious crisis we have plunged into was also due to corruption, with its roots in past mismanagement,” he noted. “Now,” he continued, “the country is saving money, there is no waste of public funds, and there is more prudence.” In addition, “the government has allocated a larger share of the budget to areas such as education and poverty reduction: the poor are receiving greater attention, and thanks to the gradual economic recovery, inflation is under control and the purchasing power of wages is stable. All these social and economic developments create a positive climate and give people real hope for greater prosperity.” Hope, however, according to the National Director, “also shapes the spiritual sphere, the inner being of every person: we see this in the Catholic community when we celebrate the Jubilee of Hope,” he says. “We are here at the level of an inner and spiritual renewal: we are rediscovering hope in our hearts so that we can transmit hope beyond the Church to society, working for peace, justice, goodness, and the witness of charity. It is a time of inner renewal, but then the effects of this hope are felt in our relationships with our neighbors, externally. Let us remember the Jubilee of the Year 2000 and renew the commitment we made at the beginning of the new millennium: to proclaim the Gospel to all creation.”Father Fernando concludes: “The renewal of the Church and of humanity begins with each individual, with the personal conversion of each person, with closeness and personal fidelity to Christ. Here in Sri Lanka, we feel the effects of secularization in the Church and in society as well. The Jubilee, therefore, begins with the transformation of the heart of each person.” (PA) (Agenzia Fides, 6/6/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: AMERICA/PERU – State and Church united to respond to the educational emergency in the Apostolic Vicariate of San Ramón

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Oventeni (Agenzia Fides) – Approximately 120 students between the ages of 12 and 18 from the 48 indigenous Ashéninka communities in Gran Pajonal are hosted during the school year at the Oventeni student residence, in the province of Atalaya, within the Apostolic Vicariate of San Ramón. “We have two pavillons for girls and two for boys. The state pays for the cooks, the maintenance staff, and the educational assistants who spend most of their time with the children, as well as two psychologists,” says Father Luis Alfonso Tapia Ibáñez, parish priest and coordinator of the ‘Keshiki’ student residence in the parish of San Pascual Bailón.The teachers are appointed by the Apostolic Vicariate of San Ramón and employed by the state. “We form a big family. This is their second home,” the priest affirms. The residence provides adolescents with the opportunity to continue their studies and overcome extreme poverty, both material and educational. Gran Pajonal, located in the central Peruvian jungle, has approximately 38 primary schools. However, the long distances—between 4 and 10 hours on foot over difficult roads—prevent many students from accessing secondary education. Therefore, at the request of parents, a bilingual secondary school was created to promote the students’ cultural identity. During the week, the adolescents reside there and return to their families at weekends.””A large part of the Vicariate is inhabited by native communities made up mostly of children,” emphasizes Gerardo Antón Zerdin, OFM, Bishop of San Ramón, in the latest bulletin of the Pontifical Society of Missionary Childhood, which supports this initiative. “Childcare is a priority due to the poverty and enormous educational deficiencies faced by these remote communities in the Amazon,” he adds. “The Vicariate directly administers five educational centers (preschool, primary, and secondary), and another fifteen schools are under the responsibility of religious congregations present in the Vicariate area.” These schools are the result of a joint effort between the State and the Church and offer free education. Regular subjects are taught there and the activities of the Pontifical Society of Missionary Childhood are promoted. However, students face serious risks, such as family instability, criminal gangs, drug use, and various forms of abuse, both within and outside the family environment. “The residence is a great opportunity for young people to get to know God, little by little, and become friends with Jesus at their own pace,” explains Father Tapia Ibáñez, “it is a wonderful opportunity to hear about God, to get to know him little by little, and to become friends of Jesus, each in his own time. The first step is friendship and the example of life. As always, we approach the children and their parents to awaken in them an interest in the Church and the Gospel. Last year, 21 students requested baptism and prepared to receive it.” (EG) (Agenzia Fides, 6/6/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that’s no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zachary W. Schulz, Senior Lecturer of History, Auburn University

    Concessions to the private sector are one reason why health care is so costly. FS Productions/Tetra images via Getty Images

    A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn’t afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I’ve come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way.

    People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult.

    I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today.

    By tracing the roots of today’s system and all its problems, it’s easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different.

    Decades of compromise

    My research and that of many others show that today’s high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good.

    Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being.

    Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job.

    In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality.

    Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time.

    Bloated bureaucracies, ‘creeping socialism’

    Today, that legacy is painfully visible.

    States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace.

    The system’s architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid’s scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike.

    Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like “rugged individualism” and “freedom of choice” have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach.

    Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as “socialized medicine” or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare.

    The health care system’s administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn’t accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries.

    President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts would reduce Medicaid spending by about US$700 billion.

    Coverage gaps, chronic disinvestment

    Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system’s underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system.

    The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce.

    These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid.

    In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives.

    All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed.

    The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect.

    A system by design

    Change is hard not because reformers haven’t tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability.

    This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers.

    Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people’s options really are.

    Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency.

    Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change.

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

    – ref. US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that’s no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians – https://theconversation.com/us-health-care-is-rife-with-high-costs-and-deep-inequities-and-thats-no-accident-a-public-health-historian-explains-how-the-system-was-shaped-to-serve-profit-and-politicians-256393

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    June 7, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Evans, Edwards Introduce Bipartisan Job-Training Bill

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Dwight Evans (2nd District of Pennsylvania)

    LEON Act is named for Rev. Leon Sullivan

    WASHINGTON (June 5, 2025) – U.S. Reps. Dwight Evans (D-PA) and Chuck Edwards (R-NC-11) have introduced a bipartisan job-training bill, the Leveraging Educational Opportunity Networks (LEON) Act, to help build pathways out of poverty and solve the nation’s structural, long-term labor shortage. 

    Under the bill (H.R. 3681), the U.S. Department of Labor would provide federal competitive grants to organizations that partner with local employers to provide no-cost professional training to workers for living-wage jobs in construction, disaster recovery, manufacturing and more. 

    “Too many families — in Pennsylvania’s 3rd District and across the country — have been shut out from employment opportunities that offer them a pathway to the middle class,” said Congressman Evans. “The LEON Act would help build a national career technical education system that would break down barriers and prepare low-income people with the skills that employers need.”

    “Western North Carolina is still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene last fall, and recovery is going to take years. This is in part because we have a shortage of qualified construction workers to help us rebuild,” said Congressman Edwards. “The LEON Act would enable us to quickly train the workers we need to help us build stronger, more resilient communities and economies.”

    The bill — which would award grants to accredited, not-for-profit, post-secondary educational institutions providing training at no out-of-pocket cost to students — is named for civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Leon H. Sullivan, who in 1964 founded a worldwide network of skills-training organizations under the umbrella of Opportunities Industrialization Centers (OIC).

    “The LEON Act is an opportunity to future-proof tomorrow’s workforce by preparing adults for jobs that will provide a pathway to the middle class,” said Louis J. King II, OIC of America’s president and CEO. “With no-cost training, we can transform lives, stabilize and strengthen communities, and address the demands of our national labor shortage. In doing so, we can create a stronger America.

    The text of the bill is available here.

    Evans represents the 3rd Congressional District, which includes Northwest and West Philadelphia and parts of North, South, Southwest and Center City Philadelphia. He recently announced that his office returned to or saved $4.5 million for constituents in 2024 in cases involving federal agencies such as the IRS, Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs. The 2024 figure brings Evans’ office’s total to more than $45.5 million returned to or saved for constituents during his first eight years in Congress.

    Evans serves on the influential House Ways and Means Committee, including its Subcommittee on Health. The committee oversees Social Security, Medicare, taxes, and trade. Evans’ website is evans.house.gov and his social media handle is @RepDwightEvans on YouTube, Bluesky, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Threads.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Tackling fuel poverty in privately rented homes

    Source: Scottish Government

    Proposals for minimum standards of energy efficiency

    Private rented homes could be subject to a Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) from 2028 to support efforts to tackle fuel poverty and reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.

    Under proposals published today, regulations would be brought forward under existing powers requiring privately rented properties, as far as possible, to reach the reformed EPC Heat Retention Rating (HRR) band C from 2028 for new tenancies and by 2033 for all privately rented homes.

    In 2022 there were 300,000 privately rented properties in Scotland. The regulations would prohibit the letting of properties which fall below the minimum standard of energy efficiency, until the landlord has made any relevant energy efficiency improvements.

    The current system of Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) is due to be revised and updated from 2026 with a new set of ratings to give clearer information on the fabric energy efficiency of a property; the emissions, efficiency and running costs of its heating system; and the cost of energy to run the home.

    Alasdair Allan, Acting Minister for Climate Action said:

    “It is vital that we find the right balance to both reach net zero by 2045 and reduce fuel poverty. Improving energy efficiency is one of the levers available to the Scottish Government that enables this dual progress.

    “The lowest rates of fuel poverty are associated with higher energy efficiency standards. A majority of privately rented properties are already at a good standard of energy efficiency, based on the current EPC regime, but others still need improvement to bring them closer to reaching a good level.

    “These proposals will improve those homes, reduce energy costs for tenants and support the transition to clean heating – which we will be further strengthening through the Heat in Buildings Bill that we have committed to bring forward later this year. Installing better insulation and other energy efficiency measures will also benefit people’s health, by reducing the risk of cold and dampness-related conditions.

    “The Scottish Government continues to offer a wide range of support to people and organisations looking to move to clean heating or improve energy efficiency, including to private landlords.”

    Exemptions are proposed to provide protection to landlords in situations where they are prevented from obtaining third party consent or permissions to carry out work; and where undertaking work could have a negative impact on the fabric or structure of the property.

    Previous proposals to regulate energy efficiency for the private rented sector were put forward in 2020 but withdrawn as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Background

    Also published today are proposals for a Heat and Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment, which could support consumers by providing further evidence, beyond the EPC system, of which energy efficiency or clean heating system measures are technically suitable for their home or building, and which may not be. This optional assessment would support in particular those in buildings which are more complex to decarbonise such as tenements, traditional and protected buildings.

    Consultation on Draft Energy Efficiency (Domestic Private Rented Property) (Scotland) Regulations

    Heat & Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment (HEETSA) – Scoping Consultation

    Private Rented Sector Landlord Loan Scheme

    Warmer Homes Scotland

    Energy efficiency: Area Based Schemes

    Withdrawn regulations: The Energy Efficiency (Domestic Private Rented Property) (Scotland) Regulations 2020

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: Keith Rankin Analysis – Equity Rights: UBI, SUI, BUI, HUI, or GUI?

    Analysis by Keith Rankin.

    Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

    Capitalism is in crisis, and our species’ imagination to save ourselves is sorely lacking. There are of course understandings out there, and solutions; but they are so heavily gate-kept that conversations about saving ourselves are well-nigh impossible. It remains a puzzle why those political and intellectual leaders who would most benefit from a regime of socially inclusive capitalism have been so avid in their anti-reform gatekeeping.

    The missing ingredient from the capitalism that most of us know, or know of, is ‘public equity’. Capitalism is presented to us all as a system of markets, individualism, laws, and private property rights. The crisis of capitalism can be addressed through the development of a set of public property rights, which we may call ‘public equity’. It is the establishment of public property rights that is necessary to democratise capitalism.

    New Zealand’s surprising history of universal income

    At the end of my Zero-Sum Fiscal Narratives (22 May 2025), I suggested that we need to promote a narrative of “public equity over pay equity as an efficient means to correct destabilising inequality”.

    In global capitalism, the first real narrative of public equity – even though it wasn’t called that – belongs to the New Zealand social security reforms of 1938. And the particular policy announced in those reforms, and implemented in the 1940 financial year, was known as Universal Superannuation. This was the activation of a human right; the right of a country’s citizens, once they reached a certain age, to receive a private income in the form of a public dividend. Irrespective of race, sex, or creed.

    At its initial conception, the ‘Super’ was modest; but was projected to grow, in accordance with affordability constraints and fiscal prioritisation. Most good big things start with small beginnings. An annual payment of $20 was set to commence in 1940. And it commenced in 1940. And the 1938 universal welfare state came in under budget (refer Elizabeth Hanson, The Politics of Social Security, 1980).

    The concept of Universal Superannuation proved to be extremely popular; a policy from the radical centre that pleased most of the public, though – until its popularity was demonstrated in 1938 – few of the politicians and other ‘opinion leaders’. The policy came to be because Michael Joseph Savage felt that his Labour Government had to come good on its most important 1935 promise, and because the ‘left’ and ‘right’ proposals favoured by each of the two main factions of the Labour Government (fortunately) cancelled out in the political numbers game.

    The universal proposal came through the middle, between left-wing attempts to radically extend redistributive measures favouring working-class families and Labour right-wing attempts to bring in an actuarial pension system based on the supposed ‘miracle’ of compound interest. The latter idea, pushed by the finance industry, was to create a contributory ‘money mountain’ from which pensions from some future date would be paid to retired working men. (This idea disclaimed the obvious reality that all spending of pension income – not just public pensions – represents a slice of present [not past] economic output.)

    (On the miracle of compound interest, it is useful to imagine persons born around 1920 saving regular percentages of their salaries from early adulthood until age 65. Such persons became rich from home-ownership, not from compound interest.)

    This retirement-income policy based on public equity was not successfully exported to the wider world. The war got in the way, and unconditional non-means-tested payments to citizens of a certain age never caught on internationally. The post-depression environment – a relatively sexually-egalitarian time – was displaced by a post-war environment, which favoured men. The more common post-war welfare model was, in its various guises, ‘social insurance’. And even Universal Superannuation in New Zealand came to be seen, increasingly, through a ‘social insurance lens’; recipients widely believed it was a contributory scheme.

    The aim of initially Labour, and subsequently National, was to gradually raise the amount of Super paid until it would render redundant (and henceforth displace) the alternative means-tested Age Benefit. National became increasingly committed to the concept of universal income support, favouring taxable universal benefits which would in practice confer more to each low-income recipient than to each high-income recipient. In the 1950s and 1960s, income tax rates were much more heavily graduated than they have been since the 1980s. (‘Graduation’ of income tax rates means higher ‘marginal tax rates’ faced by people with higher incomes.)

    By 1970, the full convergence between Universal Superannuation and the Age Benefit had still not been achieved. Retired persons would still choose either US or AB. The convergence eventually took place, in 1976.

    The universality of Super was lost twice, by the same man, who came from ‘working class aristocracy’: Roger Douglas.

    Douglas replaced Super with an actuarial (‘money mountain’ for men) system in 1974; a system which became ‘the election issue’ in 1975. This plan was conceived in the days before Equal Pay for women; ie conceived when ‘labour’ was still a highly male-gendered word in certain Labour circles. (Equal pay for women was legislated for in 1972, when Robert Muldoon was Finance Minister.)

    Robert Muldoon won a resounding victory – like Savage in 1938 – by committing to Universal Superannuation (albeit under the name National Superannuation). Muldoon, when recreating Super, did so by retiring the Age Benefit, leaving Super as the only publicly-sourced retirement income.

    About Douglas’s 1974 scheme, Margaret McLure (A Civilised Community, 1998) wrote (pp.190/91): “Douglas’ plan was rooted in early and mid-twentieth century English labour history… It drew on the 1904 ideas of Joseph Rowntree which had helped shape English social insurance, and on the English Fabian Society’s promotion of a union’s industrial pension plan of 1954… It rewarded the contribution of the fulltime long-serving male worker and provided him [and his dependent wife] with comfort and security in old age.” The full earnings-related benefit would only be payable on turning 60 to life-long workers born after 1957. It was less generous to others, and represented a backward-looking “narrow vision for the late twentieth century”. While more like the current bureaucratic Australian scheme (with its many hidden costs) than today’s New Zealand Superannuation, the Douglas scheme had inbuilt disincentives for people of ‘retirement age’ to continue in some form of paid work after becoming eligible for a pension. An older population – as in the 2030s – requires older workers with work-life flexibility.

    Douglas, in the later-1980s, again removed the universality of Super by introducing a ‘tax surcharge’ on superannuitants’ privately-sourced income, an indirect way of converting Super into a means-tested Age Benefit. Douglas renamed National Superannuation ‘Guaranteed Retirement Income’. (Douglas liked the word ‘guaranteed’, using it as a label for other benefits too. ‘Guaranteed’ implies a ‘safety net – ie an income top-up – rather than an unconditional private income payable to all citizens of a certain age. Income top-ups come with poverty traps; very high [sometimes 100%] ‘effective marginal tax rates’, when increased income from one source displaces [rather than adding to] income from another source.)

    Super was restored in 1997 as a universal income when Winston Peters was Treasurer in a coalition government; Peters, the heir to the universalist tradition within the National Party as it once was, has enabled Savage’s enlightened ‘public equity’ reform to survive to the present day, albeit as an international outlier.

    A Right. Or a Benefit?

    The presumption against universalist principles has come from Generation X, the generation born either side of 1970 who have never known any form of capitalism other than 1980s’ and post-1980s’ neoliberalism. (And noting that Roger Douglas was the poster-‘child’ in New Zealand of the neoliberal revolution which acted to restore capitalism to its neoclassical basics; markets, individualism, laws, private property, and public sector minimalism).

    This week I read this from Liam Dann, journalist on all matters relating to capitalism, and very much a ‘Gen Xer’, who wrote: Inside Economics: Should you take New Zealand Superannuation if you don’t need it? 4 June 2025. Dann is trying to resolve the clear view of his parents’ generation that Super is a ‘right’, against his own view that Super is an age ‘benefit’; a benefit that should be bureaucratically ‘targeted’. (A benefit in this sense is a redistributive ‘transfer’. By contrast, an income ‘right’ is a shareholder’s equity dividend; in a public context, the word ‘shareholder’ equates to the word ‘citizen’.)

    Liam Dann asks an excellent question though – “Should rich people opt out of NZ Super?” – albeit by misconstruing the opting process. New Zealand Super is in fact an ‘opt-in’ benefit, as Dann comes to realise. Much of the present opposition to Super comes from people who would rather that the money paid to the rich was instead paid to bureaucrats to stop the rich from getting it. In reality, there is probably a significant number of rich older people who don’t get Super because they never bothered applying to MSD to get it. As Dann notes, the government is remiss in not collecting data on the numbers of eligible people who do not opt in to NZS. (And journalists, before Dann, have been remiss in not asking for that data.)

    We should also note that, in spite of indications that ‘first-world’ life expectancies are levelling out, and indeed falling in some countries, Denmark is looking to raise its age of eligibility for a public pension to 70. In my view, this is moving in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, it is possible to both move in the direction that I am suggesting below, while raising what might be called the age of ‘privileged retirement’, meaning the age at which older people are entitled, as of right, to a higher pension or pension-like income than other citizens.

    The Denmark policy is discussed in Denmark to raise retirement age to highest in Europe, BBC, 23 May 2025.

    Universal Basic Income.

    UBI

    A Universal Basic-Income has come to mean an unconditional publicly-sourced private income, available to all ‘citizens’ above a certain age, which satisfies some kind of sufficiency test. Thus, a UBI is meant to be sufficient, on its own; a ‘stand-alone income’. New Zealand Super (NZS) – the present name for Universal Superannuation (from 1940) and National Superannuation (from 1976) – is such an income, designed to meet a sufficiency test. In particular, the ‘married-rate’ Super – $24,776 for a year before tax – is a UBI in Aotearoa New Zealand, payable to people aged over 65 who meet a certain definition of ‘citizenship’; a definition that neither discriminates on the basis of sex, race, nor creed.

    However, a UBI is considered, by many of its advocates, to be a sufficient adult income, not just a retirement income. Just as NZS is in practice, a UBI needs to be a complement to wages, not a substitute for wages.

    Technically, it is very simple to convert the ‘married-rate’ NZS into a UBI for all adults. Just two things would need to be done: lower the age of entitlement to 18, and pay for it by removing the concessionary income tax brackets (10.5%, 17.5%, 30%). (The higher ‘non-married’ rates would continue to apply to people over 65.) Under this proposal, there would no longer be MSD benefits nor student allowances, though there would still be some benefit supplements for MSD to process, such as Accommodation Supplements and NZS ‘single-rate’ supplements.

    This UBI proposal would not be fiscally neutral; though it would be less unaffordable than many people would guess. (In practice, a fiscal stimulus at present could pay for itself in increased growth-revenue in just a few years; it might even ‘return New Zealand to surplus’ sooner than realistic current projections.) For present superannuitants working part-time, it would represent a small reduction in after-tax income, given that they would be paying income tax on their wages at what is commonly known today as the “secondary tax rate”.

    Other than fiscal non-neutrality, two objections to such a UBI would be these: New Zealand has too many workers who would not meet the present NZS definition of ‘citizen’; and the UBI would be too generous to young people not working and living with their parents.

    So, while it might be less unworkable than many people would expect, this instant-UBI policy is not one I would favour.

    SUI

    SUI stands for Simple Universal-Income. Self. We note that the prefix ‘sui-‘ means ‘self’; equity rights are a development of liberal individualism, not of ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’. Some people equate public property rights with Marxian collectivism, with the ‘nationalisation of the means of production’. They couldn’t be more wrong. Collectivist schemes involve full government retention of citizens’ incomes; they are schemes of government control; completely the opposite of universal income.

    A universal private income drawn as a dividend from public wealth is individualism, not collectivism. Indeed, the natural political home of reformed capitalism is the political centre-right, not the left; albeit the new centre-right, not the privileged and stale centre-right politics which New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has so far represented. A ‘universal private income drawn from public wealth’ is different from a ‘privileged private income drawn from public wealth’.

    It would be very simple to create an SUI in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand’s income-tax scale has five rates: 10.5%, 17.5%, 30%, 33% and 39%. The 33% rate has formed the backbone of the New Zealand tax scale since 1988. As with the UBI example above, the SUI proposal simply eliminates the 10.5%, 17.5% and 30% rates. In return every adult economic citizen – effectively every ‘tax resident’ – would receive an annual SUI (ie dividend) of $10,122.50; that’s $195.66 per week. For all people receiving Benefits – including Superannuation, Student Allowances, Family Tax Credits – the first $195.66 per week of their benefit payments would be recategorised as their SUI dividend.

    That’s it. (The dividend of $10,122.50 is simply a grossing-up of the maximum benefit accrued through those lower tax rates.) Unlike the UBI option, all existing benefits and bureaucratic infrastructure would be retained; at least until they can be reconfigured in an advantageous way. From an accounting viewpoint, existing Benefits would be split into unconditional and conditional components.

    It means no change for all persons earning over $78,100 per year ($1,502 per week) before tax. And it means no change for all persons receiving total Benefit income (after tax) more than $195.66 per week. (These people could continue to be called ‘Beneficiaries’, but without stigma. Without stigma, Superannuitants can be happy to be classed as Beneficiaries.) People whose present total weekly Benefit income is currently less than $195.66 would cease to be called Beneficiaries; they would cease to be clients of the MSD, the Ministry of Social Development.

    What this means is that most New Zealanders, on Day One, would see no change in their bank accounts. Nobody would receive a lower income. And for most who receive a higher income, it would be only higher by small amount.

    This begs the question, if most people’s disposable incomes do not increase, or only increase by a trivial amount, then why bother? The important societal benefits would be dynamic; would be around incentives.

    First, individuals (of all adult ages, male and female, regardless of their position in their households) would be incentivised to take employment risks – including self-employment risks – if they receive a core unconditional income that they do not stand to lose when risk doesn’t pay off. Labour supply is boosted; as is the economy’s ‘surge capacity’ (technically, the elasticity of labour supply increases).

    Second, lower-paid individuals – many of whom are women – would have increased bargaining power (through unions and as individuals) and would not have to resort to contestable narratives such as ‘pay equity’ in order to achieve a fair wage.

    Third, individuals would be better able to negotiate weekly hours of work to optimise their work-life balance. The SUI would minimise the present ‘twin evils’ of overwork and underwork.

    Fourth, and especially for today’s high-income workers, the SUI represents an unconditional form of income insurance to facilitate the acquisition of basic needs during a period of what economists call ‘frictional unemployment’; being ‘between jobs’. Or a period of ‘voluntary unemployment’, such as attending to the health needs of another family member.

    Fifth, the SUI would count as a democratic dividend, an acknowledgement that each society’s wealth arises from both (present and past) private and public enterprise, and that – for that reason – both private and public dividends should be part of societies’ income mix. All citizens would have both private ‘skin in the game’ and a sense of ‘public inclusion’, motivating all citizens to have an ‘us’ mentality, rather than a divisive and exclusionary ‘them and us’ mentality.

    The SUI is my preferred option for New Zealand for the year 2026.

    BUI

    BUI stands for ‘Basic Universal-Income’. In the New Zealand context, it could be easily created by removing the 10.5%, 17.5%, and 33% income brackets. Thus, except for high-income-earners (say the five-percenters), there would be an effective flat tax set at 30% of production income. It would work much as the SUI.

    I have calculated that, for New Zealand, the BUI would be $7,779.50 per year, effectively $150 per week.

    To partially offset the tax cut that would be payable to people earning more than $78,100 per year, the income threshold for the 39% tax rate should come down (to $146,000, from $180,000). Tax cuts would be received by all persons earning between $78,100 and $180,000, with the maximum tax cut of just over $2,000 (just over $39 per week) being payable to someone earning $146,000.

    With this BUI, compared to the SUI, there would be more day-one beneficiaries (ie more better-off people) on higher incomes, and fewer day-one beneficiaries on lower incomes. Nobody would be worse off. The dynamic benefits discussed in relation to the SUI would still apply.

    This is a policy that the Act Party should embrace, given its stated commitments to liberal-democracy, individualism, enterprise, and the future of capitalism.

    A wider benefit of BUI is that it could represent a small beginning to something bigger and better. Just as with Universal Superannuation, the ‘establishment fear-factor’ soon dissipated. And universal benefits came to be embraced in the 1950s by both ‘left’ and ‘right’ in Aotearoa New Zealand; a decade in which there were very few persons of working age relative to persons classifiable as ‘dependents’.

    HUI

    HUI represents Hybrid Universal-Income; a mix of UBI and SUI. What would happen is that the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation would be lowered, but not all the way to age 18. Today the ‘threshold age’ is 65. Under a HUI, all adult tax residents under the new threshold age would receive a SUI, on the same basis as described above.

    A variant of HUI would be more flexible; a flexible Hybrid Basic Income. Everyone between say 30 and 70 would be able to have a UBI for say ten years; otherwise they would have an SUI. (This might be a policy that would work well for Denmark.)

    Today a large proportion of babies are born to mothers aged 30 to 40. Many of these mothers might prefer to have children while in their early thirties, but, for financial reasons, end up having their children later. If all adults could choose when to have their ten years UBI, I could imagine many women choosing their thirties, and many men choosing their forties. Thus, women would be able to leave paid work to a greater or lesser extent around when they would most like to have children, and their partners could take their UBI after the mothers of their children have returned to fulltime employment. For persons in their forties, parenting non-infant children fits with the life-stage when many people would like to be establishing their own businesses and becoming employers. This would create incentives to both working-class (and bourgeois) human reproduction, more enterprise, and more employment opportunities in the private sector for youngish and oldish workers.

    A further variant of this variant could be to extend the SUI to a UBI for individuals over 60 who lose their jobs on account of redundancy. This would help the many women such as those who were caught out by the Labour Government’s barely-noticed 2020 decision to remove NZS entitlements to ‘non-qualifying-spouses’ (ie people who become redundant, mostly women, whose life-partners are already on New Zealand Superannuation). (We might also note that the Sixth Labour Government – 2017 to 2023 – cut the after-tax wages of all women [and men too] by not inflation-adjusting income-tax bracket thresholds. Looked at in full historical context, Labour governments in New Zealand have not been kind to women.)

    GUI

    We might note that the UBI case, first-mentioned above, would be very close to a Generous Universal-Income. In this case, only the 39% income-tax rate would be retained, and the UI would be an annual GUI dividend of $20,922.50 (ie $402.36 per week). All income would be taxed at 39% and all economic citizens would receive a weekly private (but publicly-sourced) dividend of just over $400.

    Conclusion

    The UI policies presented above (possibly excepting the GUI, and the UBI) reflect a liberal non-establishment centre or centre-right political perspective. The GUI and UBI, in practice, realistically reflect only future policy directions (given their clear fiscal non-neutrality), whereas the SUI, BUI, and HUI all represent changes that could be easily implemented in the May 2026 Budget.

    My preference, for immediate implementation, is the SUI. In inclusive capitalist societies, public equity returns to individuals are a right. Much of societies’ capital resource is not privately owned.

    As in 1938 to 1940, New Zealand can set an example for the democratic reformation of global capitalism. Unfortunately, the 1938 to 1940 reform – Universal Superannuation – was not taken up by an otherwise distracted world. (Sadly, New Zealand’s misguided 1989 monetary policy ‘reform’ – the Reserve Bank Act – was taken up by a then-attentive wider world. Unnecessarily high interest rates have caused huge grief on a global scale.)

    We can choose to have a 2026 reform – a technically simple reform, that, through being promoted to the wider world as an example of how capitalism can be democratic and inclusive – which can have beneficial global consequences. Do our leaders have the intellect, imagination and courage that Michael Joseph Savage revealed in 1938? Hopefully ‘yes’, but realistically ‘no’.

    *******

    Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    June 6, 2025
  • Operation Sindoor outreach: Indian delegation calls on US Vice President in Washington

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    An all-party Indian Parliamentary Delegation, led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, on Thursday had an “excellent meeting” with the United States Vice President J.D. Vance in Washington, briefing him about Operation Sindoor, terrorism faced by India and regional security.

    The delegation is on a 2-day visit to the United States as part of India’s global outreach against terrorism following Operation Sindoor.

    The Indian Embassy in the United States said, “The All Party Parliamentary Delegation led by Shashi Tharoor called on Vice President J D Vance this morning. The conversation focused on strengthening the India-US partnership including cooperation in counter-terrorism domain.”

    Vance was on India visit when the Pahalgam terror attack took place on April 22.

    In a strong message of support and solidarity, the US Vice-President had also called Prime Minister Narendra Modi to strongly condemn the terror attack and convey that the United States is ready to provide “all assistance” in the joint fight against terrorism.

    After meeting Vance, Tharoor shared on X, “Excellent meeting with Vice President J D Vance today in Washington D.C. with our delegation. We had comprehensive discussions covering a wide array of critical issues, from counter-terrorism efforts to enhancing technological cooperation. A truly constructive and productive exchange for strengthening India-US strategic partnership, with a great meeting of minds.”

    Earlier on Thursday, Tharoor spoke with Ambassador Ken Juster at Council on Foreign Relations on India’s fight against terrorism.

    The delegation also met Senator Andy Kim, Member of the US Senate Homeland Security Committee.

    “The Indian parliamentary delegation led by Shashi Tharoor had a wonderful conversation with Senator Andy Kim, Member of the US Senate Homeland Security Committee, and briefed him on the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India’s measured and precise response during Operation Sindoor, and our firm resolve to respond swiftly to any such incidents in the future. The conversation also spanned productive areas of cooperation, including entrepreneurship, trade, technology, and counterterrorism!,” said the Indian embassy.

    Later, the delegation interacted with members of various think tanks at the Indian Embassy. The conversation focused on India’s fight against terrorism and the multi-faceted India-US partnership.

    Tharoor said that the delegation has received solidarity and understanding at everywhere they went.

    He reiterated India’s stance that “there will be a price to pay” if terrorist attacks like the one in Pahalgam are carried out in India.

    He said, “And I’m very pleased to say that everywhere we went and I could say this quite confidently without exception, we have received both of what we sought. We have received understanding and we have received solidarity. And these two things are really what we came for. We will continue to meet others during the remaining time today and tomorrow. I want to stress one thing, and then I’ll be very happy to open it up for discussions, and that thing is quite simply that this is not something we would really have wanted to spend our time on.”

    “We are a country focused on growth and development. Our focus has entirely been on the economic advances that are so essential to pull a few the few people who remain below the poverty line in our country out below that and to take the rest into the developed India of our dreams. But, sadly, when this kind of thing is done to us, and for very cynical motives, which I think are pretty apparent so I won’t spell them out, it was necessary for us to show that we will not allow people to cross the border and kill our citizens with impunity. That for terror strikes like this, which show all the hallmarks of meticulous planning and military style execution, that there will be a price to pay. And that was very strongly the message that we sent,” he added.

    Apart from Tharoor, the delegation includes Lok Janshakti Party-Ram Vilas MP Shambhavi Choudhary, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s Sarfaraz Ahmad, Shiv Sena’s Milind Murli Deora; BJP’s Shashank Mani Tripathi, Bhubaneswar Kalita, and Tejasvi Surya; and Telugu Desam Party’s GM Harish Balayogi. Former Indian Ambassador to the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, is also accompanying the delegation.

    (With inputs from IANS)

     

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson Denounces Potential Closure of Chicago Job Corps Center, Calls for Congressional Action to Protect Vital Program

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Jonathan Jackson – Illinois (1st District)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01) today vehemently condemned the recent decision by the Department of Labor, stemming from the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts, to phase out operations at Job Corps centers across the nation, including the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center. This move threatens to displace hundreds of young Chicagoans, disrupt critical job training and educational opportunities, and exacerbate economic hardship within the broader Chicago community.

    The Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center has been a beacon of hope and a ladder to opportunity for countless individuals in our city. The center serves approximately 500 students annually, equipping them with the skills necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency and contribute meaningfully to our communities.

    “The decision to shutter the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center is a cruel and counterproductive blow to the young people of Chicago, particularly those in underserved communities within the First District who rely on its services,” said Congressman Jackson. “At a time when we should be investing in workforce development and creating pathways out of poverty, this action does the exact opposite. It risks rendering students homeless and derailing their futures. This is not just an attack on a program; it’s an attack on the aspirations of our youth and the economic well-being of our city.”

    The history of Job Corps in Chicago is rich with success stories of individuals who have overcome significant barriers to achieve stability and success. Nationally, Job Corps has a proven track record, with studies demonstrating positive impacts on participants’ educational attainment, employment rates, and earnings, while reducing involvement in the criminal justice system. The closure of the Chicago center would sever a vital link for many young people to these life-changing opportunities.

    Congressman Jackson expressed his strong support for the recent federal court decision to issue a temporary restraining order:

    “The court’s intervention provides a crucial, albeit temporary, reprieve. It underscores the reckless nature of this decision and the irreparable harm it would cause,” stated Congressman Jackson. “However, a temporary stay is not a permanent solution.”

    Congressman Jackson is calling on his colleagues in Congress to take immediate and decisive action to protect and fully fund the Job Corps program. He has noted his support for legislative efforts such as H.R. 2281, the “Strengthening Job Corps Act of 2025,” which aims to reauthorize and enhance the program.

    “We cannot stand idly by while essential programs like Job Corps are dismantled,” Congressman Jackson urged. “I call on Congressional leadership to bring forward legislation that safeguards the future of Job Corps and ensures that centers like the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center can continue their invaluable work. Investing in our young people is an investment in the future of Chicago and our nation. Now is the time to strengthen these programs, not abandon them.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Ivey, Van Hollen, Klobuchar Lead Nearly 100 Members in Pressing Administration for Answers on Cancellation of Protected Status for Afghans Living in U.S.

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Glenn Ivey – Maryland (4th District)

    Decision could endanger thousands of Afghans, including many who supported U.S. efforts during the war in Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON – Congressman Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), joined Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)  in leading 98 of their colleagues in pressing for answers from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State around the decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals living in the United States. The lawmakers’ letter, sent to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, notes the devastating impact of this decision, including on the many Afghans who supported the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan and who face significant danger upon their return. 

    “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions,” the lawmakers began. 

    They go on to note, “The Secretary of Homeland Security ‘may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.’  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.” 

    “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls,” they stress. 

    The lawmakers close the letter urging the Administration to reverse course and seeking the following information: 

    Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023. 

    The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.

    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS. 

    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan. 

    What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan?

    In addition to Senator Van Hollen, Congressman Ivey, and Senator Klobuchar, the letter was signed by Senators Alsobrooks, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Coons, Cortez Masto, Duckworth, Durbin, Fetterman, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Kelly, Kim, King, Markey, Padilla, Reed, Rosen, Sanders, Schiff, Smith, Warner, Warnock, Welch, and Wyden and Representatives Amo, Ansari, Balint, Bell, Beyer, Budzinski, Carbajal, Carter, Casten, Castro, Chu, Clarke, Cleaver, Courtney, Dean, DeGette, DelBene, Elfreth, Evans (Pa.), Fields, Garcia (Calif.), García (Ill.), Garcia (Texas), Goldman, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gottheimer, Hayes, Jackson (Ill.), Jayapal, Johnson (Ga.), Johnson (Texas), Kaptur, Keating, Kelly (Ill.), Kennedy (N.Y.), Krishnamoorthi, Landsman, Larson, Latimer, Levin, Lieu, Lofgren, Lynch, McClain Delaney, McClellan, McCollum, McGovern, Meeks, Mfume, Moulton, Norton, Olszewski, Pallone, Panetta, Peters (Calif.), Raskin, Sánchez, Scanlon, Schakowsky, Sherman, Sorensen, Subramanyam, Swalwell, Titus, Tlaib, Tokuda, Tonko, Vargas, Veasey, and Watson Coleman.

    The full text of the letter is available here and below. 

    Dear Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio:

    We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions. 

    The Secretary of Homeland Security “may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.”  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.  In September 2023, the U.S. extended and redesignated TPS for Afghanistan. The Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan negatively impacts approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals. 

    In your announcement, you state that “there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.”  But you also concede that threats of violence and terrorism, as well as humanitarian concerns, remain.  The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, they will be caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP.  According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, especially against women and girls. Women and girls are banned from attending secondary school or university and are unable to move freely. The Taliban also continues to detain and torture journalists, curtailing free speech and media. The 2023 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report covering Afghanistan found that women’s rights rapidly declined and restrictions on freedom of expression increased. The horrific human rights conditions in Afghanistan are unsafe for Afghan nationals to return to and returning would put their personal safety at immediate risk. 

    We are also deeply concerned about the State Department Human Rights Report finding that widespread arbitrary and unlawful killings against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government have occurred.  Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military should not be put in harm’s way because they supported the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This would be a betrayal of those who bravely served alongside our servicemembers for nearly two decades. 

    Afghan civilians still face devastating humanitarian and economic conditions. Over half of the population in Afghanistan needs urgent humanitarian assistance. Human Rights Watch reports that in 2024, 12.4 million people were facing food insecurity and 2.9 million were at emergency levels of hunger.  The World Bank also found that in Afghanistan, as of May 2025, “per capita income has stagnated, while poverty and food insecurity remain pressing challenges, exacerbated by high unemployment and restrictions on women’s economic participation.”  

    The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls. 

    In August 2021, Americans welcomed Afghan nationals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia with open arms, and we refuse to turn our backs on them now.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan and ask that you respond to the following requests no later than two weeks of receipt of this letter:

    Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023.  

    The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.

    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS. 

    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan. 

    What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan? Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and we hope to receive your responses soon.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tom Malleson, Associate Professor of Social Justice & Peace Studies, Western University

    Democratic worker co-operatives are workplaces where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board. (Shutterstock)

    A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not.

    At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime.

    Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts.

    At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many.

    These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants.

    In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn’t enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent.

    But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy?

    My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board).

    Why workplace democracy matters

    In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon’s minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences.

    By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one.

    There’s also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it’s profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs.

    Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work.

    A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that “my opinions seem to count.”

    In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management.

    In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits.

    Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren’t able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like.

    Most workers are trapped in undemocratic jobs

    Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn’t viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on.

    Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it’s too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most.

    Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment.

    Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn’t, they’re out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no.

    So what’s the solution?

    Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today.

    It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options.

    Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative.

    Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn’t lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves.

    Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It’s possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare.

    On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy.

    Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration.

    The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible.

    Tom Malleson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace – https://theconversation.com/why-canada-needs-a-law-that-gives-workers-the-right-to-govern-their-workplace-257776

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Nick Langworthy Introduces Energy Choice Act to End Blue-State Wars on American Energy

    Source: US Congressman Nick Langworthy (NY-23)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Nick Langworthy (NY-23) and Senator Jim Justice (R-WV) introduced the bipartisan, bicameral H.R. 3699, the Energy Choice Acttoprohibit states or local governments from banning an energy service’s connection, reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion based on the type or source of energy to be delivered. Congressman Langworthy, who serves as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and as a member of the Energy and Environment subcommittees, has made protecting Americans’ energy choices a top priority.

    “Governor Hochul and Democrats in Albany have waged an extremist crusade against natural gas that’s sent home energy costs through the roof, crippled our energy supply, and left New York teetering on the edge of an energy crisis—all to satisfy the radical fantasies of the far-left climate cult. New York has been ground zero for the Green New Deal, where common sense goes to die and working families get stuck with the bill,”said Congressman Langworthy.“That’s why I’ve introduced the Energy Choice Act—to slam the brakes on these reckless, ideological mandates and restore sanity to America’s energy policy. People deserve the freedom to choose energy that is affordable, reliable, and proven—not be forced into rolling blackouts to please eco-activists who don’t live in the real world. I thank Senator Justice for introducing this bill in the Senate and urge its swift action.”

     

    “I am an energy guy from an energy-rich state. I know how important freedom of energy production is – which is why I’m proud to introduce Energy Choice Act of 2025. President Trump has stated the need to unleash American energy, and this bill helps facilitate just that. We have too great an energy crisis in this country, and we don’t have the luxury of picking the winners and losers when it comes to energy production. Americans ought to have the right to choose what is best for their energy needs,” said Senator Jim Justice.

     

    The full text of the bill can be found here. Original cosponsors of this legislation include Representatives Michael Baumgartner (R-WA), Jack Bergman (R-MI), Mike Bost (R-IL), Robert Bresnahan Jr. (R-MI), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Mike Carey (R-OH), Jeff Crank (R-CO), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Jake Ellzey (R-TX), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Lance Gooden (R-TX), Pat Harrigan (R-NC), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Jeff Hurd (R-CO), Darin LaHood (R-IL), Michael Lawler (R-NY), Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Tracey Mann (R-KS), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Addison McDowell (R-NC), Mark Messmer (R-IN), Dan Meuser (R-PA), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Tim Moore (R-NC), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), August Pfluger (R-TX), John Rose (R-TX), Michael Rulli (R-OH), Jefferson Shreve (R-IN), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), GT Thompson (R-PA), David Valadao (R-CA), Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), Tony Wied (R-WI), Roger Williams (R-TX), Ryan Zinke (R-MT).

     

    Original cosponsors in the Senate include Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).  

     

    “Democratic-controlled states like New York are waging an all-out attack on domestic energy production, undermining Americans’ right to choose their preferred energy source. The Energy Choice Act combats these authoritarian regulations by preventing state and local governments from banning specific energy sources. To achieve true energy independence, we must ensure Americans have access to a full range of options, including natural gas,”said Congresswoman Tenney.

     

    “Montanans know the value of reliable, affordable energy, especially during winters when access to natural gas, coal, and other traditional fuels isn’t just a convenience, it’s a necessity,” said Congressman Zinke. “Heavy handed policies from places like Albany and Sacramento don’t reflect the realities of rural America, where energy diversity is vital. The Energy Choice Act is common sense legislation that defends our right to choose the energy sources that work best for our homes and businesses, and I am happy to co-sponsor it again.”

     

    “In order to achieve American energy dominance, we must utilize an all-of-the-above energy strategy that prioritizes affordability and reliability. By prohibiting states and local governments from banning a service based on the source of the energy, we can ensure that families and small businesses are not being forced to utilize more costly energy sources. I thank Rep. Langworthy for his leadership as we work to make energy more affordable and reliable for our constituents,” said Congressman Newhouse.

     

    “Energy freedom is essential to both our economy and national security,” said Congressman Mike Rulli. “Efforts by state governments to ban natural gas and other traditional energy sources not only hurt working families through higher costs but also jeopardize grid reliability – especially in regions with harsh winters like ours. I’m proud to support the Energy Choice Act and thank Congressman Langworthy for putting consumers first and ensuring that no American is forced into an energy system that doesn’t work for them or their community.”

     

    “Strengthening America’s energy independence requires an all-of-the-above energy strategy that ensures consumer demand and industry experts, not bureaucrats and extreme environmentalists, lead the expansion and delivery of energy services. Banning certain types of energy, like California and New York have tried to do, only raises prices for Americans,” said Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11). “The Energy Choice Act will safeguard the diversification of energy sources in our nation and make sure that Americans have access to reliable and affordable energy.”

     

    The Energy Choice Act has received wide support from federal organizations, including American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), American Gas Association (AGA), American Public Gas Association (APGA), Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), Energy Marketers of America (EMA) , GPA Midstream Association, GPSA Midstream Suppliers, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), National Association of Oil and Energy Service Professionals (OESP), National Energy and Fuels Institute (NEFI), National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors – National Association (PHCC), Pool & Hot Tub Alliance (PHTA), LIBRE Initiative, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA).

    This legislation has also received support from state organizations, including Alabama Propane Gas Association, Arizona Propane Gas Association, Arkansas Propane Gas Association, Colorado Propane Gas Association, Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, Florida Propane Gas Association, Illinois Propane Gas Association, Indiana Food and Fuel Association, Iowa Propane Gas Association, Propane Gas Marketers of Kansas, Kentucky Petroleum Marketers Association, Kentucky Propane Gas Association, Louisiana Propane Gas Association, Maine Energy Marketers Association, Massachusetts Energy Marketers Association, Michigan Petroleum Association, Michigan Propane Gas Association, Mid-Atlantic Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association, Mid-Atlantic Propane Gas Association, MidStates Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Midwest Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Mississippi Propane Gas Association, Missouri Propane Gas Association, Nebraska Propane Gas Association, Energy and Convenience Marketers of Nevada, Nevada Propane Gas Association, New Mexico Propane Gas Association, North Central Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Northeast Heart, Patio & Barbecue Association, Northwest Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Energy Marketers Association of New Hampshire, Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey, New Jersey Propane Gas Association, Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York Inc., New York Propane Gas Association, Empire State Energy Association (ESEA), Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York (IOGANY), New York State Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors, New York State Energy Coalition (NYSEC), New York State Oil Producers Association (NYSOPA), North Carolina Petroleum and Convenience Marketers, North Dakota Propane Gas Association, Ohio Energy and Convenience Association, Ohio Oil and Gas Association, Ohio Propane Gas Association, Oklahoma Propane Gas Association, Oregon Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Pacific Propane Gas Association, Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association Pacific, Eastern Pennsylvania Energy Association, North Eastern Pennsylvania Energy Marketers Association, Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, Pennsylvania Petroleum Association, Southeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, South Central Pennsylvania Energy Association, South Central Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Propane Gas Association of New England, Energy Marketers Association of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Business Leaders Alliance, Rocky Mountain Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Rocky Mountain Propane Association, South Carolina Convenience & Petroleum Marketers Association, South Dakota Petroleum and Propane Marketers Association, Southeast Propane Alliance, Tennessee Propane Gas Association, Texas Propane Gas Association, Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, Virginia Petroleum & Convenience Marketers Association, Virginia Propane Gas Association, West Virginia Propane Gas Association, Western Propane Gas Association, Washington Independent Energy Distributors, Wisconsin Fuel and Retail Association, Wisconsin Propane Gas Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC).

    “NEFI proudly supports the Energy Choice Act, which represents a critical step toward protecting American consumers and small businesses from government overreach in the home energy market,”said Jim Collura, President & CEO of the National Energy & Fuels Institute (NEFI), which represents wholesale and retail distributors of liquid heating fuels, primarily in the Northeast.“This bipartisan legislation ensures that decisions about home heating and cooling remain where they belong – in the hands of American families, not government bureaucrats. At a time when families are recovering from record high inflation, the last thing we need are misguided state and local policies that eliminate affordable heating options. The Energy Choice Act protects market competition, preserves consumer choice, and promotes energy affordability and reliability. We urge Congress to pass this common-sense legislation without delay.”

     

    “NAHB commends Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) for championing the Energy Choice Act, legislation that prohibits state and local governments from banning or limiting access to natural gas, electricity, and other energy sources. A gas ban would exacerbate the housing affordability crisis by increasing costs on new homes and placing added stress on the nation’s electrical grid. With more than 40 million U.S. households relying on natural gas for heating, cooking, and hot water, preserving access to this affordable and reliable energy source is vital for American families,”said Buddy Hughes, Chairman, National Association of Home Builders.

     

    “On behalf of millions of AFP’s grassroots activists across the country, we applaud Rep. Nick Langworthy for introducing the Energy Choice Act to ensure energy freedom throughout the United States. Regardless of where Americans live, they shouldn’t be forced to endure energy poverty. The Energy Choice Act will provide certainty, security, and assurance for much-needed permitting reform and energy infrastructure development. Rep. Langworthy’s legislation will ensure American dominance in energy and lower costs for consumers while embracing an “all-of-the-above” approach on the federal level,” said Brent Gardner, Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity.

     

    “The Energy Choice Act represents a critical step in protecting consumer access to clean, affordable, and reliable energy sources like propane,”said Stephen Kaminski, President and CEO of the National Propane Gas Association. “NPGA commends Rep. Langworthy and Sen. Justice for their leadership in introducing this legislation to defend energy diversity and empowering Americans to choose the energy solutions that best meet their needs. This bill safeguards consumers from rising energy costs driven by overreaching government mandates.”

    “The American Public Gas Association (APGA) strongly supports Representative Langworthy’s Energy Choice Act. This important legislation will safeguard American consumers’ right to choose the energy that best meets their household and budget needs. Access to affordable, reliable, and efficient natural gas is essential to the success of American families, businesses, and communities. APGA applauds the bill’s sponsors for their leadership in protecting consumer choice and promoting energy affordability,” said Dave Schryver, President & CEO, APGA.

     

    “The refusal of certain state and local governments to consider policies that provide a more sustainable transition to a less carbon-intensive future, coupled with the economic burdens placed on the American people through restrictions or bans on fossil fuel heating sources, necessitates federal preemption to ensure homeowners can continue to afford living in their homes while having robust options for maintaining home comfort. The Energy Choice Act provides that recourse and PHCC supports its immediate passage,” said Dan Callies, President, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, National Association.

     

    “Passage of this important legislation is a no brainer. We encourage House lawmakers to pass the bill immediately to restore consumer choice and support small business energy marketers across the country,”said Rob Underwood, Energy Marketers of America President.

     

    “At a time when no New Yorker is immune to statewide affordability challenges, having the freedom to choose energy solutions that work best for their homes, businesses, and communities is critical to keeping costs manageable for everyday people. The Energy Choice Act ensures we are taking an all-of-the-above approach to meeting energy needs — opening opportunities to tap into existing solutions like biofuels that advance clean energy goals, while also fostering continued innovation to build a more secure, affordable energy future. We support this commonsense legislation, thank Congressman Langworthy for his leadership, and urge House lawmakers to pass the Energy Choice Act to deliver real energy solutions for all Americans and support the small business energy marketers who help power our communities,”said Kris DeLair, Executive Director of the Empire State Energy Association.

     

    “GPA Midstream appreciates Representative Langworthy taking action to introduce legislation to protect consumer choice. New Yorkers and all Americans deserve the right to choose the energy source, such as natural gas or propane, that is reliable and best fits their budget needs,”said Stuart Saulters, VP of Federal Affairs, GPA Midstream Association.

     

    “Americans deserve reliable, affordable energy without bureaucratic roadblocks or special interests getting in the way. This bill protects consumer choice and energy innovation by ensuring that no state or local government can block access to energy sources based on political agendas or bad politics. This bipartisan bill is a common-sense step toward securing our energy future, protecting American energy jobs, and most importantly protecting the pockets of working class Americans who should not have to pay more for energy. The LIBRE Initiative is grateful for Rep. Langworthy’s leadership on this important issue,” said Helder Toste, Government Affairs Liaison, The LIBRE Initiative

     

    “Concerned Veterans for America wholeheartedly endorses Rep. Nick Langworthy’s Energy Choice Act on behalf of the members of our country’s largest veteran-led grassroots advocacy organization.  This bill will ensure energy freedom in every state and protect hardworking citizens from high energy costs created by special interests at the state level. Veterans served so that Americans are free to benefit from our nation’s ingenuity and natural abundance, and are free to live their unique American Dreams.
    The Energy Choice Act limits states’ permitting requirements and promotes a more resilient energy infrastructure. Rep. Langworthy’s legislation will ensure continued American domestic energy availability and lower costs for consumers while embracing a free market approach to energy development across the country,” said John Vick, Executive Director, Concerned Veterans for America.

    ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Hochul on “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell”

    Source: US State of New York

    ast night, Governor Kathy Hochul was a guest on MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.”

    AUDIO: The Governor’s interview is available in audio form here.

    A rush transcript of the Governor’s remarks is available below:

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: Joining us now is Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul of New York. Governor, thank you very much for joining us.

    Governor Hochul: Great to see you again, Lawrence.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: I want to begin with this point about Congressman Michael Lawler. This used to be completely bipartisan in Congress. If you had a government office in your district, near your district — like Social Security — helpful to your community. The President, the administration of your party would never close that ever. Because you as a Republican or a Democrat with a Democratic president, if they were even thinking of it, if it was ever on a list, you’d get in there, you’d fight for it, you’d keep it open. That didn’t happen here.

    Governor Hochul: That shows how insignificant the members of Congress are. All the power has been ceded to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s all in Donald Trump’s hands, and they’re sitting there on their hands silent, afraid to say a word, because he might help somebody in a primary against them. They’ve been paralyzed in action. And as a result, if one single person — Mike Lawler, Elise Stefanik, anybody else who thinks they’re running for higher office — any one of them had voted against this bill, it would’ve been dead.

    They did not look out for the rural hospitals in their districts that will close, the thousands of people thrown out of jobs in an area where it’s hard to get work in our red parts of our state, the most rural areas. I know them so well — my old district.

    Mike Lawler letting that Social Security office close — it serves seven counties. Now people have to travel over an hour and a half. Some have to go to Connecticut to get services. And if you’re walking into an office for social services — Social Security services — you’re usually an elderly person, can’t get around, you haven’t figured out how to use your computer, and you’re showing up in person and now you have to travel over an hour. Thank you, Mike Lawler. Thank you, Republican members of Congress. Because you clearly don’t give a damn about the people who put you in office.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: In Upstate New York — the areas we’re talking about now — the frequent hospitals are one of the very big employers. What do Medicaid cuts of this scale mean to those hospitals?

    Governor Hochul: Hospitals will lose $3 billion in the State of New York per year. We can’t help solve that problem. This is federal dollars that we need to have here. It is a major employer. Like I said, when I represented seven very rural counties in the reddest part of our state and Congress, I’d always wanted to see who the employers are when I went to visit. The hospital was always the largest, then sometimes it was the prisons, then it was county government. It took a long time to get a private employer because these were people who got their jobs, they worked hard, they struggle. It’s hard to recruit doctors, so they’re always living on the margin. So this basically says it’s not just going to close for Medicaid recipients, it’s going to close for everybody.

    When your kid gets sick and needs emergency care, your parents are having a heart attack, mom or dad are sick, you’re not going to have a hospital to get them to it. That’s how serious this is.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: The Medicaid is the single biggest payer for nursing homes, not just in New York State, but throughout the country, pays about 40 percent of the revenue to nursing homes. What does it mean for nursing homes?

    Governor Hochul: One hundred thousand people in the State of New York who are in nursing homes will lose their Medicaid coverage. Now, what are the options? If you’re in a nursing home, you’re usually in a difficult situation, right? Are you going back to your family’s couch, your grandchildren, going to live in their spare bedroom? It does not have a path forward.

    That’s why the insanity of this bill has to be stopped in the Senate. I never thought I’d be relying on the Republican Senate to bail out our country. But that just shows how desperate we’ve become, that we’re counting on them to do the right thing.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: And if there’s any changes in it — I mean, you used to work in the Congress, you know how it goes. If there’s any changes in it in the Senate, it goes back to the House. Mike Lawler gets another vote on this in the House. The pressure would be on the New York House Republicans, once again, if it goes back to the House.

    Governor Hochul: Well, even if he sees the light and all the constituents that are really unhappy with him right now, force him to change his vote, you’ll never walk away from that first one. You’ll never be able to walk away from that.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: This is all happening at the same time where Donald Trump is imposing tariffs that the Trade Court has said are all completely illegal. You’re a border state with Canada. You do an awful lot of trade across that border every single day that’s important for all of New York. What are the Trump tariffs doing to your state?

    Governor Hochul: The Trump tax is devastating for the State of New York. We have 450 miles of shared border. We’re basically neighbors. We don’t even think of them as a foreign country at all. And so we have a $50 billion trade balance, and what that means is it’s farmers who can’t export into Canada, New York, because they won’t accept our goods and nothing is coming our way because they can’t afford it.

    One farmer told me that it’s going to cost him $10,000 more a month. These people live on the margins. They have a bad crop. The chickens have to be killed because of bird flu. I mean, they’re always struggling and the cost of everything from aluminum to steel to the shavings that they get to put in the stalls because we get them from the trees in Canada — we have such a synergy with them.

    But it’s not just the crops and the business going back and forth and the trade of commodities, it’s also the tourism. Tourists are not coming over. They used to fill the stadium in Buffalo because Buffalo Bisons, they’re an affiliate of the Toronto Blue Jays. They usually see a third of the people going to Buffalo Bills games and hockey games and our small tourism towns up in the North country, Lake Placid and Saranac Lake, and Plattsburgh, Lake George.

    They’re all suffering now because the Canadians are saying not just this threat of tariffs, but the fact that you’re talking about taking over our country. It is so insulting to our Canadian friends. I understand it, but flights from Canada are down dramatically at JFK. They’re not coming to New York City, they’re not spending money, they’re not going to the shows, and the rest of the state is feeling the ripple effect. It is devastating.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: The Republican budget bill, they’re working on it now. You’ve already got a budget. You did your job on a budget much earlier than Washington as usual, I would say. You had to do the best you could with that budget, with the information you had at the time. Might this be a situation where you have to come back — if this Republican budget becomes law — come back and revisit the New York State Budget?

    Governor Hochul: We may have to do that, but what I want to talk about for one minute is my budget in contrast to what’s happening in Washington. When we talk about these tariffs, we’re talking about over $3,000 to $6,000 more in additional costs. Everything’s going to cost more, especially commodities from China.

    I’m focusing on affordability because I know New Yorkers are struggling. My own family used to live in a trailer park — clipped coupons, we bought our clothes at used clothing stores. So when I see parents, moms and dads today trying to make ends meet, I said, “The best thing I can do for them is to help lift them out of poverty or lift them out of their circumstances, put money back in their pockets.”

    I have $5,000 going back in the pockets of New York families with Child Tax Credit, Middle Class Tax Cut, and an inflation rebate, covering the cost of school lunches and breakfast for every family, and parents are so grateful. But I’m going to put that in this pocket, and the Trump tariffs are taking it out because everything’s going to cost more. So families feel like they just can’t get ahead.

    So we’ll come back if we have to deal with this. I expect we’ll come back in the fall, but we received $93 billion from the federal government. I can’t make that up. No state is going to make that up. So that’s the harsh situation that we’ll be seeing when cuts to everything.

    The largest cut to nutrition program that’s happening, Title One under education law means that schools in New York State that take care of our highest need kids will be cut. There’s no part of our state that will be untouched if that devastating bill becomes law. We must stop that.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: Governor Kathy Hochul, thank you very much for finding the time to come by and see us. Really appreciate it.

    Governor Hochul: Great to see you again.

    Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC: Thank you.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: UK looks to military gap years to boost recruitment in the face of growing geopolitical tension

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Mills, Professor of Human Geography, Loughborough University

    Harrogate, 2019. Steve Gill – Visuals/Shutterstock

    The UK government recently endorsed proposals in its strategic defence review to consider the creation of military gap years for young people in the UK.

    It would potentially be similar to a scheme offered by the Australian Defence Force. Young Australian citizens can spend 12 months doing paid work in a variety of roles in the Navy, Army or Air Force.

    In Australia in 2023, 664 young people enlisted in the gap year programme, and 374 of these transferred on to a role in the permanent Australian Defence Force. Like in Australia, the gap year model in the UK would be optional and for over 18s to get a “taste” of military life.

    These gap years would be a part of recruitment strategy. The proposal comes at a time of global geopolitical crisis, national youth unemployment and a shortage of soldiers (a global problem).


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Another key reason for the introduction of these gap years, highlighted in defence secretary John Healey’s oral statement on the review, is to “reconnect the nation with those who defend us”. Keir Starmer, in his speech, spoke of “a new spirit of service, flowing from every part of society … everyone benefiting, everyone playing their role”.

    Young people are seen as a key part of building these connections. Another avenue raised in the review is to increase the number of cadet forces, a voluntary uniformed national youth organisation for teenagers that can also be linked to schools.

    An evaluation of cadet forces in the UK has outlined significant positive outcomes for young people, including for their employment and career prospects.

    Air cadets at the Lord Mayor’s Show, London, 2021.
    Sandor Szmutko/Shutterstock

    The strategic defence review also proposed “working with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the armed forces among young people in schools”, but details of this are still unclear.

    These suggestions form part of a trend towards increasing military presence in children and young people’s lives. My research has found that, over the last decade, successive UK governments have encouraged programmes with a military ethos within schools and character education to foster grit and gumption.

    Watered-down national service?

    My research shows that calls to reintroduce some form of military service appear at times of political, social or economic crisis. It’s not surprising then, that in the last few years we have seen several proposals in this area. Most notable is previous prime minister Rishi Sunak’s election pledge in 2024 that school leavers would have to do a year of compulsory military or voluntary service.

    A voluntary gap year – national service “lite” – would be a more palatable approach compared to formal conscription, which is still active in several countries.

    Starmer has been keen to distance himself from the language of national service, especially as he has also committed to introducing votes at 16: compulsory national service doesn’t poll well with young people.

    The UK has also recently scrapped its voluntary National Citizen Service, a non-military, short-term youth programme centred on local community action that has cost over £1.5 billion since 2010.

    But the fact that two successive prime ministers in the space of one year have pitched some form of military experience for school leavers tells us that this is not necessarily about benefits for youth, but about the concerning geopolitical landscape and the urgent need to boost recruits.

    In 2025 compared to the last few decades, the state’s concern is less about youth crime, apathy or patriotism, but rather growing international security threats and the nation’s preparedness.

    It is important to remember that the debate about national service in the UK is fuelled by generational nostalgia. In the UK, formal national service ran from the late 1940s to early 1960s for men aged between 17 and 21. Ever since those final troops were discharged in 1963, there has been a debate about “returning” to national service.

    Research shows that those who were actually part of compulsory national service after the second world war generally don’t think we should bring it back. This debate is cyclical, and each time it happens, it reveals what the state and adults think about young people more generally, usually shaped by moral panics.

    Would a gap year be popular?

    Given the current economic climate, it could be that a paid short-term year of military service is more attractive to UK teenagers and their CVs than ever before. However, we must reflect on why it might be so attractive in the present moment and understand the wider, structural issues shaping the lives of children and young people today.

    The costs of austerity and inequality in the UK run deep for children and young people. These issues cannot be solved by a defence focused gap year and there are other pressing demands to support young people in this country. For example, youth sector representatives are urging the UK government to reverse the long-term decline in funding on youth services.

    The impetus for a military gap year in the report is strategic defence, not unemployment. But there is no guarantee the defence sector itself will be keen to embrace this idea.

    When Sunak proposed national service last year, defence experts and ministers raised concerns about the British Army and Navy’s current capacity and resources to deliver such a programme. They also highlighted the potential impact of such a scheme on the morale of professional, dedicated and highly-skilled force personnel.

    The actual feasibility of any new programme is uncertain, especially with the current fiscal situation. One thing my research suggests is certain though, is that this national debate will circle back around again and again.

    Sarah Mills has received research funding from UKRI (ESRC), the British Academy and the Royal Geographical Society. She is currently an unpaid member of the advisory ‘College of Experts’ group of researchers for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (UK Government) https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/dcms-college-of-experts

    – ref. UK looks to military gap years to boost recruitment in the face of growing geopolitical tension – https://theconversation.com/uk-looks-to-military-gap-years-to-boost-recruitment-in-the-face-of-growing-geopolitical-tension-258207

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: Nigeria’s renewable power capacity to reach 1.7GW in 2035, forecasts GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    Nigeria’s renewable power capacity to reach 1.7GW in 2035, forecasts GlobalData

    Posted in Power

    The renewable energy sector in Nigeria presents a wealth of growth opportunities. Nigeria plans to increase the share of renewable electricity generation to 23% in 2025 and 36% by 2030. Under the Renewable Energy Master Plan (REMP), the country planned to increase the cumulative installed capacities of small hydropower, solar PV, biomass, and wind power to 2GW, 500MW, 400MW, and 40MW by 2025, respectively. Against this backdrop, renewable power capacity in the country is expected to reach 1.7GW in 2035, registering a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.9% during 2024-35, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

    GlobalData’s latest report, “Nigeria Power Market Outlook to 2035, Update 2025 – Market Trends, Regulations, and Competitive Landscape,” reveals that annual power generation in Nigeria is expected to increase at a CAGR of 17.5% during 2024-35 to reach 1.8TWh. Within the renewable energy sector, solar PV technology stands out as a significant investment prospect. There has been a noticeable increase in solar PV capacity additions in the country over the past few years. A primary catalyst for this surge is the REMP.

    Attaurrahman Ojindaram Saibasan, Senior Power Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “Nigeria relies heavily on thermal sources for its power generation. The nation possesses one of the largest natural gas reserves globally and the most extensive in Africa, which has led to the increasing prevalence of thermal power generation within the country.”

    A significant challenge that power generators encounter is the absence of a guaranteed fuel supply, resulting in the underutilization of assets. Following privatization, there was a lack of infrastructure to foster an environment conducive to the effective execution of fuel supply agreements, which are essential for establishing bankable power purchase contracts.

    To overcome this challenge, the country has placed focus on renewables, especially solar PV, to cater to a part of its electricity requirement. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, is experiencing rapid urbanization, which is driving an increase in household electricity demand for lighting, cooking, refrigeration, cooling, entertainment, and various appliances. Power-intensive industries such as cement, food processing, and textiles are also significant consumers of electricity.

    Due to the unreliable supply from the grid, many businesses resort to operating diesel or petrol generators, indicating that the actual energy demand is considerably higher than what grid consumption data suggest. Renewable power capacity with energy storage will help overcome this issue.

    Saibasan adds: “The primary catalyst for the adoption of solar PV technology in Nigeria is the serious issue of energy poverty and the inconsistency of electricity supply. Consumers’ preference for solar PV arises from the demand for dependable power.”

    Innovations in solar technology, coupled with novel financing models such as Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG), have propelled the growth of distributed solar power (DSP). These developments enhance the viability and scalability of solar initiatives, positioning them as compelling investment prospects.

    Saibasan concludes: “DSPs in Nigeria possess considerable potential, bolstered by the nation’s rich solar resources and escalating energy requirements. The Rural Electrification Agency is actively executing an expansive strategy that incorporates both energy service company-led and utility-led models. This approach is designed to expedite the electrification process via grid expansion and the deployment of green mini grids.

    “The primary focus is on electrifying market clusters, manufacturing centers, educational institutions—including schools and universities—and healthcare facilities, utilizing solar PV and hybrid solar PV-diesel systems.”

    MIL OSI Economics –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: King Calls for Answers on Cancellation of Protected Status for Afghans Living in U.S.

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and long a fierce advocate to protect Afghans who supported and protected American troops, joined 28 of his Senate colleagues to call on the White House for answers on the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for those who served alongside America’s military. In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Senators note the devastating impact of this decision, including on the many Afghans who supported the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan and who face significant danger upon their return.
    “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions,” the lawmakers began.
    They continued, “The Secretary of Homeland Security ‘may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.’  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.”
    “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls,” the lawmakers concluded.
    In addition to King, the letter was signed by Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Corey Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
    Senator King has long supported the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program for America’s Afghan allies who assisted the U.S. government during the war in Afghanistan. More specifically, he cosponsored the Afghan Allies Protection Act to increase the number of authorized visas for Afghan civilians who risked their lives to support the U.S. mission, remove extraneous paperwork requirements and improve the program’s efficiency during the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. 
    The full text of the letter is available here and below.
    +++
    Dear Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio:
    We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security “may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.”  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.  In September 2023, the U.S. extended and redesignated TPS for Afghanistan. The Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan negatively impacts approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals.
    In your announcement, you state that “there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.”  But you also concede that threats of violence and terrorism, as well as humanitarian concerns, remain.  The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, they will be caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP.  According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, especially against women and girls. Women and girls are banned from attending secondary school or university and are unable to move freely. The Taliban also continues to detain and torture journalists, curtailing free speech and media. The 2023 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report covering Afghanistan found that women’s rights rapidly declined and restrictions on freedom of expression increased. The horrific human rights conditions in Afghanistan are unsafe for Afghan nationals to return to and returning would put their personal safety at immediate risk.
    We are also deeply concerned about the State Department Human Rights Report finding that widespread arbitrary and unlawful killings against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government have occurred. Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military should not be put in harm’s way because they supported the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This would be a betrayal of those who bravely served alongside our servicemembers for nearly two decades.
    Afghan civilians still face devastating humanitarian and economic conditions. Over half of the population in Afghanistan needs urgent humanitarian assistance. Human Rights Watch reports that in 2024, 12.4 million people were facing food insecurity and 2.9 million were at emergency levels of hunger.  The World Bank also found that in Afghanistan, as of May 2025, “per capita income has stagnated, while poverty and food insecurity remain pressing challenges, exacerbated by high unemployment and restrictions on women’s economic participation.” 
    The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls.
    In August 2021, Americans welcomed Afghan nationals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia with open arms, and we refuse to turn our backs on them now.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan and ask that you respond to the following requests no later than two weeks of receipt of this letter:
    Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023. 
    The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.
    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS.
    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan.
    What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan?
    Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and we hope to receive your responses soon.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Video: Experts Explain | Daniel Susskind | How can we rethink growth?

    Source: World Economic Forum (video statements)

    Given the overlapping crises facing the world today—widening inequality, accelerating climate change, rising political instability, and slowing progress in poverty reduction—it’s no longer enough to ask whether economies are growing. We need to ask at what costs and in what ways.

    In our latest episode of Experts Explain, Oxford professor and author Daniel Susskind discusses how we found ourselves in today’s growth dilemma and why confronting today’s challenges demands a total rethink of prosperity, how we measure it and what we truly value.

    The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

    World Economic Forum Website ► http://www.weforum.org/
    Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/
    YouTube ► https://www.youtube.com/wef
    Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/worldeconomicforum/ 
    Twitter ► https://twitter.com/wef
    LinkedIn ► https://www.linkedin.com/company/world-economic-forum
    TikTok ► https://www.tiktok.com/@worldeconomicforum
    Flipboard ► https://flipboard.com/@WEF

    #WorldEconomicForum

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr0_u_YpVeg

    MIL OSI Video –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Joins Colleagues in Pressing Administration to Stand by America’s Promises of Safety for Afghan Allies, Who Protected and Fought Alongside U.S. Troops

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) joined Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Congressman Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in pressing for answers from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State on the decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals living in the United States. The lawmakers’ letter, sent to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, notes the devastating impact of this decision, including on the many Afghans who supported the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan and who face significant danger upon their return. The letter was signed by more than 100 lawmakers. 
      “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions,” the lawmakers began.  
     They go on to note, “The Secretary of Homeland Security ‘may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.’  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.”  
      “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls,” they stress.  
     The lawmakers close the letter urging the Administration to reverse course and seeking the following information:  
      Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023.   
     The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are. 
     Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS.  
     Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan.  
      What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan? 
    The letter was signed by Senator Welch, and led by Senator Van Hollen, Congressman Ivey, and Senator Klobuchar. The letter was also signed by Senators Alsobrooks, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Coons, Cortez Masto, Duckworth, Durbin, Fetterman, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Kelly, Kim, King, Markey, Padilla, Reed, Rosen, Sanders, Schiff, Smith, Warner, Warnock, and Wyden and Representatives Amo, Ansari, Balint, Bell, Beyer, Budzinski, Carbajal, Carter, Casten, Castro, Chu, Clarke, Cleaver, Courtney, Dean, DeGette, DelBene, Elfreth, Evans (Pa.), Fields, Garcia (Calif.), García (Ill.), Garcia (Texas), Goldman, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gottheimer, Hayes, Jackson (Ill.), Jayapal, Johnson (Ga.), Johnson (Texas), Kaptur, Keating, Kelly (Ill.), Kennedy (N.Y.), Krishnamoorthi, Landsman, Larson, Latimer, Levin, Lieu, Lofgren, Lynch, McClain Delaney, McClellan, McCollum, McGovern, Meeks, Mfume, Moulton, Norton, Olszewski, Pallone, Panetta, Peters (Calif.), Raskin, Sánchez, Scanlon, Schakowsky, Sherman, Sorensen, Subramanyam, Swalwell, Titus, Tlaib, Tokuda, Tonko, Vargas, Veasey, and Watson Coleman. 
      The full text of the letter is available here and below.  
      Dear Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio: 
     We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.  
     The Secretary of Homeland Security “may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.”  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.  In September 2023, the U.S. extended and redesignated TPS for Afghanistan. The Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan negatively impacts approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals.  
     In your announcement, you state that “there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.”  But you also concede that threats of violence and terrorism, as well as humanitarian concerns, remain.  The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, they will be caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP.  According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, especially against women and girls. Women and girls are banned from attending secondary school or university and are unable to move freely. The Taliban also continues to detain and torture journalists, curtailing free speech and media. The 2023 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report covering Afghanistan found that women’s rights rapidly declined and restrictions on freedom of expression increased. The horrific human rights conditions in Afghanistan are unsafe for Afghan nationals to return to and returning would put their personal safety at immediate risk.  
     We are also deeply concerned about the State Department Human Rights Report finding that widespread arbitrary and unlawful killings against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government have occurred.  Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military should not be put in harm’s way because they supported the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This would be a betrayal of those who bravely served alongside our servicemembers for nearly two decades.  
     Afghan civilians still face devastating humanitarian and economic conditions. Over half of the population in Afghanistan needs urgent humanitarian assistance. Human Rights Watch reports that in 2024, 12.4 million people were facing food insecurity and 2.9 million were at emergency levels of hunger.  The World Bank also found that in Afghanistan, as of May 2025, “per capita income has stagnated, while poverty and food insecurity remain pressing challenges, exacerbated by high unemployment and restrictions on women’s economic participation.”   
     The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls.  
     In August 2021, Americans welcomed Afghan nationals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia with open arms, and we refuse to turn our backs on them now.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan and ask that you respond to the following requests no later than two weeks of receipt of this letter: 
     Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023.   
     The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.  
    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS.   
    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan.  
     What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan? 
     Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and we hope to receive your responses soon. 
     

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Detroit voters have an opportunity to pick a mayor who will ease zoning, improve transit and protect long-term residents

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian J. Connolly, Assistant Professor of Business Law, University of Michigan

    Five of Detroit’s mayoral candidates discuss their ideas for the future of the city. Detroit PBS

    Five of the nine candidates in Detroit’s mayoral contest debated on May 29, 2025, during the annual Mackinac Policy Conference.

    When asked about outgoing Mayor Mike Duggan’s 11-year tenure, many of the candidates praised him for skillfully steering Detroit through bankruptcy and attracting new business investment.

    But the candidates also saw an opportunity to do more.

    “Without a doubt, we have to ensure that more investment comes back into our neighborhoods and that we’re activating our commercial corridors,” the race’s front-runner, Detroit City Council President Mary Sheffield, said.

    Helping Detroit residents improve their neighborhoods will be an important task for the city’s next mayor. I do not live in Detroit, but my family lived there for generations before my grandparents joined the white flight from the city in the 1970s. And my research on housing, infrastructure and land use law offers some ideas for how the next mayor could encourage investment while at the same time improving social equity.

    Duggan’s legacy

    By most accounts, the Motor City under Duggan has been an urban revitalization success story.

    Once the nation’s murder capital, its crime rate has fallen dramatically.

    And after experiencing the largest-ever municipal bankruptcy, the city boasts an investment-grade credit rating. For the past two years, the city has gained population after decades of losses. But many of the city’s neighborhoods, from Brightmoor to Jefferson-Chalmers, have not experienced the same economic surge as its booming downtown.

    Detroit’s Brightmoor neighborhood has an artsy vibe – and a high crime rate.
    Patrick Gorski/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    In the city center, offices are being converted to apartments, Michigan’s second-tallest building is rising along with other new developments, and the city has hosted major national events such as the NFL draft. Yet some of Detroit’s outlying areas still suffer from disinvestment and abandonment, poor infrastructure, underperforming schools and crime.

    Many Detroiters are concerned the city’s boom might displace longtime residents if it causes housing prices to increase dramatically or removes affordable homes from the market.

    Detroit’s voters will narrow the field to two candidates on Aug. 5. To help voters evaluate the candidates’ positions between now and then, here are some research-backed ideas for improving life in the city.

    Make it easy to build

    Detroit’s next mayor can make it easier to build new homes and businesses in the city’s neighborhoods.

    Repopulating neighborhoods reduces visual blight, brings life to vacant areas and improves the city’s fiscal health by bringing in new tax revenue. Population growth also supports neighborhood businesses that create jobs and serve the community. And it will mitigate the city’s recent, steep growth in housing prices by adding new supply to the market.

    Easing zoning and building rules is a good place to start. U.S. cities such as Minneapolis and Portland have recently reformed zoning laws to simplify housing construction. They’ve also modified single-family zoning citywide to allow multiplexes and accessory dwelling units. Those interventions have resulted in a small increase in new housing. Even more construction has taken place in cities such as Denver that have allowed higher-density development along major corridors – projects that can be more easily scaled and financed due to their larger size and attractiveness to investors.

    To date, Detroit has not adopted any of these reforms.

    Another way to spur building is to offer developers a predictable approval process. Even if cities maintain building height restrictions, setbacks and design requirements – things Detroit has maintained – predictable procedures reduce development costs and assure investors that projects can be completed on time. For example, cities can shorten the time it takes to review a project. They can also avoid city council or planning commission public hearings with subjective review criteria, which Detroit currently allows under its zoning laws.

    Detroit’s initial efforts to update its zoning in 2018 stalled. Yet the city has an opportunity to become the nation’s easiest place to build, and doing so will ensure that it remains affordable while attracting investment.

    Improve transit service

    Detroit’s next mayor can aid its neighborhoods by improving transit service.

    Without a regional transit system, southeast Michigan remains heavily car-dependent. Yet a 2017 study showed less than half of low-income Detroiters own cars. And of those who don’t own a car, 43% missed work, an appointment or something else due to a lack of transportation. Although this study is several years old, these statistics likely haven’t changed much due to rising costs of housing and car ownership.

    Today, nearly one-third of Detroiters live in poverty – meaning, for a family of four, they earn less than US$32,000 per year – yet the national average annual cost of car ownership exceeds $12,000. Giving lower-income Detroiters a low-cost, reliable means to get to work would benefit the city’s neighborhoods, residents and businesses.

    Expanding transit service has other benefits, too. Transit reduces traffic, encourages the healthy habit of walking to and from stops and improves air quality. Transit investments also increase land values around stations and brings new businesses to these neighborhoods. In addition to serving the needs of working Detroiters, more frequent and reliable bus service would increase neighborhood property values, according to research.

    Make property taxes fairer

    Since the city’s emergence from bankruptcy 11 years ago, housing wealth in Detroit has grown by $4.6 billion.

    Although a rise in land values signals investor confidence in the city and benefits its homeowners, high prices limit Detroiters’ ability to afford housing, the wealth is not shared with everyone, and there is heightened risk of displacing low-income residents.

    And, as candidates frequently mentioned during the debate, after more than 40 years of tax increases to make up for sliding property values, the city has one of the highest effective property tax rates in Michigan, over 2.8%, making housing even less affordable. Nevertheless, Detroit routinely abates taxes for major commercial developments such as Hudson’s Detroit and several downtown hotels, which some residents view as unfair.

    Detroit’s next mayor has an opportunity to reduce the property tax burden for residents and businesses, improve the system’s fairness, and use increasing land prices and new development for public benefit.

    Duggan proposed a land-value tax to replace the city’s property tax in 2023. Unlike property taxes, land-value taxes place a levy on the value of land, not structures on the land. These taxes create an incentive for owners to develop their properties for productive use rather than speculate on underutilized land.

    In a city like Detroit, with thousands of vacant properties, a land-value tax would encourage development by limiting the benefits of long-term land speculation. For lower-income homeowners and renters, the city could avoid displacement through exemptions and other mechanisms.

    Duggan’s proposal failed in the Michigan Legislature, which needs to approve changes to the property tax. But Detroit’s next mayor could revive this push.

    The next mayor could also press the Legislature for other tools, such as the authority to levy development impact fees to build parks and schools or provide social services in neighborhoods affected by new development.

    Michigan law allows the formation of special assessment districts, business improvement zones and other special taxing entities to provide public infrastructure. Expanding these tools may allow Detroit to leverage rising property values to provide public benefits such as streets or parks.

    Importantly, the city can gain better public services and infrastructure while encouraging development. Tools such as the city’s community benefits ordinance, which requires developers of large projects to negotiate with neighbors for services and amenities, look good on paper but can delay projects or mistake individuals’ interests for community needs. Similarly, affordable housing mandates often lead to counterproductive results such as discouraging new development or raising costs on market-rate housing.

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

    – ref. Detroit voters have an opportunity to pick a mayor who will ease zoning, improve transit and protect long-term residents – https://theconversation.com/detroit-voters-have-an-opportunity-to-pick-a-mayor-who-will-ease-zoning-improve-transit-and-protect-long-term-residents-254540

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    June 6, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville – A10-0101/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville

    (2025/2004(INI))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York and establishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

    – having regard to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development held in Addis Ababa from 13 to 16 July 2015,

    – having regard to the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015, adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

    – having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) of 13 September 2007,

    – having regard to the document of the United National Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) of January 2012 entitled ‘Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Lending and Borrowing’,

    – having regard to the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC),

    – having regard to the UN General Assembly Resolution 68/304 of 9 September 2014 entitled ‘Towards the Establishment of a Multilateral Legal Framework for Sovereign Debt Restructuring Processes’,

    – having regard to the UN General Assembly Resolution of 10 September 2015 on the ‘Basic Principles on Sovereign Debt Restructuring Processes’,

    – having regard to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 10 November 2022 entitled ‘Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2023: No Sustainability Without Equity’,

    – having regard to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 5 September 2024 entitled ‘Multilateral Development Finance 2024’,

    – having regard to the UN Secretary-General’s SDG stimulus to deliver Agenda 2030 of February 2023,

    – having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 79/1 of 22 September 2024 entitled ‘The Pact for the Future’, adopted at the Summit of the Future in New York,

    – having regard to the partnership agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and the Members of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the other part[1] (the Samoa Agreement),

    – having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission of 30 June 2017 entitled ‘The new European consensus on development: Our world, our dignity, our future’[2],

    – having regard to the Council conclusions of 10 June 2021 on enhancing the European financial architecture for development,

    – having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2018 on enhancing developing countries’* debt sustainability[3],

    – having regard to its resolution of 24 November 2022 on the future European Financial Architecture for Development[4],

    – having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2023 on Policy Coherence for Development[5],

    – having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2023 on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals[6],

    – having regard to the EU Gender Action Plan (GAP III),

    – having regard to the Youth Action Plan (YAP) in European Union external action for 2022-2027,

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision No 466/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009[7],

    – having regard to the Climate Bank Roadmap of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 14 December 2020,

    – having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 1 December 2021 entitled ‘The Global Gateway’ (JOIN(2021)0030),

    – having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A10-0101/2025),

    A. whereas Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), dictates the reduction, and in the long-term eradication, of poverty as the primary objective of the EU’s development cooperation; whereas Article 21(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) reaffirms its commitment to supporting human rights, preserving peace and preventing conflict, assisting populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters, and to the sustainable management of global natural resources;

    B. whereas Article 18(4) TEU calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to ensure the consistency of the Union’s external action;

    C. whereas, at this critical juncture, with just five years remaining before we reach the 2030 target date for the SDGs, the increasing number of crises worldwide, the rise in extreme poverty and hunger, and the increasingly frequent and severe consequences of climate change have meant that, according to the 2024 UN SDG Report, only 17 % of the Sustainable Development Goals are currently on track to be achieved by 2030, despite progress in certain areas; whereas developing countries’[*] domestic revenue mobilisation remained low, due, among other factors, to illicit financial flows and also often corruption, causing crucial resources to be diverted from healthcare, education, and infrastructure development;

    D. whereas more than 700 million people worldwide are living in extreme poverty, a figure that keeps increasing; whereas poverty disproportionately affects women and girls globally, and the gender-poverty gap persists to this day; whereas the wealth gap and inequality within and between countries is widening, hindering sustainable development;

    E. whereas mobilising even a small fraction of global wealth for sustainable development remains difficult, with UN Trade and Development estimating that the annual SDG financing gap in developing countries* has increased to USD 4–4.3 trillion, representing a more than 50 % increase over pre-pandemic estimates and requiring an unprecedented mobilisation of financial resources, both public and private, at the global level, especially to tackle the climate crisis, biodiversity loss and rising inequalities;

    F. whereas food insecurity has significantly risen as a result of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as due to the impact of other armed conflicts and is therefore a barrier of achieving the SDGs; whereas EU cooperation needs to tackle the challenge of food security effectively with partner countries in a sustainable manner;

    G. whereas leading global donors in development cooperation are abandoning their commitments to finance sustainable development;

    H. whereas it is estimated that, if Member States had met the commitment to devote 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to official development assistance (ODA) since 1970, more than EUR 1.2 trillion could have been allocated for development cooperation, a figure that is likely even to be much higher when taking into account the remainder of donor countries worldwide;

    I. whereas developing countries* face significantly higher borrowing costs, paying on average twice as much interest on their total sovereign debt stock compared to developed (higher income) countries, due to imbalanced global financial structures, but also due to the rating of country-specific risk factors, governance challenges or macroeconomic instability, which further exacerbates the finance divide;

    J. whereas, according to the latest data, almost two-thirds of low-income countries in the world are currently either in debt distress or at high risk thereof, with over 100 countries struggling due to the combination of debt and interest; whereas low-income countries (LICs) spent nearly 20 % of government revenues on servicing external debt in 2023, up fourfold since 2013; whereas debt spending in over three-quarters of low income countries is several times the spending on public goods such as education, health, social protection, or climate change, thus creating one of the most important obstacles for global south countries to advance the SDGs;

    K. whereas if indebted countries are also hit by a catastrophic external shock, such as a natural disaster, they often resort to further borrowing to pay for the reconstruction and recovery costs;

    L. whereas developing countries* in debt distress are projected to face annual debt servicing costs of USD 40 billion between 2023 and 2025, severely constraining their fiscal space for essential public investments;

    M. whereas achieving sustainable development requires more than just curbing debt solutions and securing external finance, it also involves strengthening the economic self-sufficiency of developing countries*, including through enhanced domestic resource mobilisation, qualitative investment-friendly policies, favouring the promotion of local entrepreneurship and local private sector growth;

    N. whereas a fifth of the world’s population lives in countries with high levels of inequality and, according to data from 2023, the richest 1 % of the world owns 47.5 % of all global wealth, and the effective tax rates on the richest 1 % are often lower than the tax rates for the rest of the population;

    O. whereas Climate Resilient Debt Clauses (CRDC) are clauses that can be added to loan or bond contracts and that are triggered by certain specified external catastrophic events, notably climate-related events, which allow the borrower to temporarily suspend debt payments;

    P. whereas the structure of creditors is changing and becoming more complex, with private creditors and new bilateral creditors outside the Paris Club playing a much larger role; whereas China, in particular, issues loans under opaque conditions, which is why stronger international regulation and disclosure of this debt is necessary;

    Q. whereas the upcoming Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in 2025 presents a critical moment for the necessary reform of the global financial architecture and for addressing the growing financing challenges;

    R. whereas the current international financial architecture is based on the Bretton Woods Agreements of 1944, which represent an architecture that today is incapable of meeting the needs of the 21st century multipolar world, specifically the needs of so-called Global South countries – characterised by deeply integrated economies and financial markets, but also marked by geopolitical tensions, growing systemic risks and the effects of climate change, and persists in upholding the existing power imbalance that favours countries in the so-called Global North;

    S. whereas in order to address unsustainable and illegitimate debts, all governments must participate on an equal footing in the decision-making on debt crisis prevention and resolution, as well as different aspects of debt management, beyond creditor-dominated forums;

    T. whereas an improved global financial safety net is necessary to deal with systemic risks and global financial, economic and health crises and shocks;

    U. whereas indebted countries tend to avoid debt restructuring at all costs, i.e. to secure access to the financial market in the future; whereas in order to make external debt payments possible, governments tend to implement harsh austerity programmes, on many occasions following the IMF assessment;

    V. whereas conditionalities imposed by the IMF and some multilateral development banks (MDBs) are focused on fiscal consolidation and market solutions, thus limiting public investment to advance the SDGs; whereas the ultimate consequence of austerity programmes is a deep breach of people’s human rights in the Global South; whereas the G20 Common Framework has done little to solve those limitations, since priority is given to debt rescheduling and reprofiling;

    W. whereas tax resources as a share of GDP remain low in most developing countries*, which are confronted with social, political and administrative difficulties in establishing a sound public finance system, thereby making them particularly vulnerable to tax evasion and avoidance activities of individual taxpayers and corporations;

    X. whereas globalisation creates both opportunities and challenges, as in the case of the increased prevalence and size of multinational enterprises and changes in business models that may enable base erosion and tax avoidance and profit shifting on a significant scale, severely undermining domestic revenue collection, particularly in developing countries*; whereas as a result, taxes on corporate profits have been declining around the world; whereas international tax cooperation needs more solidarity to address national and global challenges;

    Y. whereas climate change has a negative impact on global sustainable development, exacerbating biodiversity loss, breakdown of ecosystems, natural disasters and extreme weather events, and disproportionately affecting historically marginalised groups, in particular women;

    Z. whereas development aid is increasingly being militarised, with funds originally intended for poverty eradication and social progress being diverted towards migration control, security cooperation, and geopolitical competition;

    Aa. whereas illicit financial flows out of developing countries*, challenges such as trade mispricing, loopholes in international tax rules and corruption continue to pose a serious obstacle, often undermining fair and inclusive development efforts, and impacting developing countries’* national budgets and social policy, thus severely reducing funds available for sustainable development; whereas responsible tax behaviour by multinational enterprises is an essential element of the principles of corporate social responsibility;

    Ab. whereas the potential of taxing extractive industries to boost fiscal revenues is largely untapped in developing countries*, primarily due to inadequate global tax rules and the challenges of enforcing them, as transnational companies frequently employ tax avoidance strategies; whereas this challenge is all the more acute for low-income countries that are heavily dependent on natural resources for their economic development;

    Ac. whereas current investment choices continue to diverge from the sustainable development goals, with vast capital flows supporting carbon-intensive industries, while funding for decarbonisation and the energy transition remains insufficient;

    Ad. whereas Russia is expanding its foothold in developing countries* in Africa, most notably in the Sahel region, spreading anti-European propaganda and offering alternatives to European ODA through bilateral deals;

    Ae. whereas the digitalisation of the economy has exacerbated existing problems relating to corporate tax avoidance and evasion, and the importance of ensuring fair and effective taxation of digital services;

    Af. whereas the EIB, through its development arm EIB Global, has committed to increasing the impact of international partnerships and development finance outside the European Union, presenting an opportunity for an enhanced EU contribution to global sustainable development;

    Ag. whereas the EIB has expanded its regional presence, including by opening new regional representation offices, such as the one in Jakarta, Indonesia, to strengthen engagement in south-east Asia and the Pacific;

    Ah. whereas the EIB, through EIB Global, is committed to sustainable development, climate action and innovative investments in low- and middle-income countries;

    Ai. whereas on 20 January 2025, the United States issued an Executive Order, enacting a 90-day suspension and reassessment of all foreign assistance programmes, including those administered by  United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and reaffirmed its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Paris Agreement, actions that have serious implications for humanitarian, health and climate initiatives in the Global South; whereas other countries, including some EU countries, also cut their global aid budgets, placing immense pressure on the international development and humanitarian sector;

    Aj. whereas the US withdrawal from foreign assistance programmes puts the EU in a decisive position in global development cooperation and the EU should assess how to strategically address critical shortfalls, particularly in sectors where stability, economic development, and humanitarian support are at risk, while ensuring a coordinated approach with international partners;

    Ak. whereas using regional multilateral development banks (MDBs) as a source of funding could lead to more balanced and equitable collaborations in support of efforts to reform the international financial architecture;

    Al. whereas official development assistance (ODA) has been cut back in many countries, including in the EU; whereas in 2023 only five countries worldwide met or exceeded the UN target of spending 0.7 % of their GNI on official development assistance (ODA); whereas the EU collectively undertook to provide 0.7 % of GNI as ODA, and 0.2 % as ODA to least developed countries (LDCs) by 2030, reaffirmed in the Council conclusions of June 2024, in the European Consensus on Development and in the Council conclusions of 26 May 2015; whereas the successful mobilisation of further capital, both private and public, in addition to ODA and other existing forms of development finance, is critical;

    Am. whereas the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) agreed upon during the COP29 in Baku on 24 November 2024 includes commitments to mobilise at least USD 300 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries*; whereas the launch of the Baku-Belém Roadmap requires reaching at least an additional USD 1.3 trillion per year for development cooperation by 2035;

    An. whereas the fragmentation of government approaches to sustainable development financing remains a challenge, with the OECD noting that better policy coherence is needed to align tax, budgetary and development policies;

    Principles and objectives

    1. Stresses the importance for the international community to utilise the opportunities presented by the 4th Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) in Seville to promote structural reform of the international financial architecture to democratise international development cooperation and create equal power sharing, and to call for equitable and inclusive development cooperation policies that support gender equality;

    2. Calls on the EU as a key multilateral actor and its Member States to increase their efforts in development cooperation, increasing their presence, to improve the EU’s global credibility as a reliable partner and strengthen partnerships based on shared values;

    3. Reiterates that EU development policy must be driven by the principles and objectives set out in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and must ensure the application of a human rights based and human-centred approach, in line with Article 208 TFEU, the European Consensus on Development, the GAP III, the YAP, and International Human Rights Law;

    4. Acknowledges that the existing financial architecture presents ongoing challenges to preventing and addressing debt crises, highlighting the need to strengthen the tools available to promote responsible financing and long-term debt sustainability; considers that, in view of the insufficient progress towards the SDGs, the SDG financing gap, and the multitude of recent crises, the FfD4 is an urgently needed opportunity to set up a fair and efficient multilateral debt work-out mechanism, to help strengthen multilateralism, support systemic changes that address long-standing inequalities, define concrete commitments, reinforce the EU’s credibility as a development partner, as well as make substantial progress on ensuring stable financing for sustainable development worldwide; stresses that the mobilisation and effective use of domestic resources, underpinned by the principle of national ownership, are also essential for sustainable development;

    5. Calls on the EU to take effective measures against the shrinking of civic space, and ensure civil society participation in the reform of the current structures for development finance;

    6. Reiterates that at least 93 % of EU development policy expenditure must fulfil the criteria for ODA, and that at least 85 % of new actions should have gender equality as a principal or significant objective, and that at least 5 % should have gender equality as the principal objective;

    7. Emphasises the need for a comprehensive, integrated and people-centred approach to development finance in line with the Bridgetown Initiative, which calls for liquidity and debt sustainability issues to be addressed, for democratisation of financial institutions and debt relief to be implemented, for development and climate finance to be scaled up and for private capital to be increased to achieve the SDGs; stresses the importance of strengthening cooperation with like-minded partners;

    8. Calls for the EU to lead by example in reforming the international financial architecture to better meet the needs of the 21st century, characterised by deeply integrated economies, financial markets, and growing systemic risks;

    9. Recalls the commitment taken at COP 29 in form of the Baku-Belem roadmap to mobilise USD 1.3 trillion per year for development cooperation by 2035; urges the EU and its Member States to work together with their partners towards achieving this goal on the global level, encouraging cumulative polluters to take their part in climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries*, as well as for loss and damages, through public concessional and non-debt creating instruments, in line with the ‘Baku to Belem Roadmap’ agreed at COP 29; emphasises in this context the need for private investment to provide the necessary funds;

    10. Recalls that progressive taxation is pivotal to making progress on the ecological transition as well as on social and economic justice; stresses the need to look to new sources of financing, notably from sectors contributing the least to taxation while benefiting the most from globalisation, including those with the largest carbon and greenhouse gas emissions; in particular, calls for the exploration of innovative financing mechanisms, including market-based instruments and for contributions from sectors benefiting from globalisation, and establishment of specific taxes, to help finance global public goods, reduce inequalities within and between countries, contribute to climate objectives and support regional sustainable development; notes that growth, competitiveness and stability of developed economies is also a necessary precondition for increasing ODA financing;

    11. Stresses the importance of policy coherence for development (PCD), including gender and climate goals, as a fundamental part of the EU’s contribution to achieving the SDGs; calls for mainstreaming development goals into all EU policies that affect developing countries*, taking into account their legitimate concerns as regards the impact from European legislation; welcomes the Global Gateway strategy and highlights the importance of any EU development initiative to comply with a rights-based approach and to be linked to human development at all times; insist that EU development initiatives should never contribute in any way to enhancing the debt crisis or increasing inequalities; stresses furthermore that PCD implementation is essential to address the structural causes of the Global South’s unsustainable indebtedness;

    12. Stresses the importance of supporting enabling environments for civil society engagement through development programmes and ensuring their participation in decision-making processes on development aid, including ensuring an inclusive process in the FfD4, supporting civil society participation and access to negotiations and information, and support their role in monitoring and following up on decisions made;

    13. Underlines that underinvestment in critical social sectors threatens progress towards meeting the SDGs and exacerbates inequalities, including gender inequality; stresses the need to close financing gaps in the provision of essential public services, including health, education, energy, water and sanitation, and building social protection systems;

    14. Recognises the primary objective of EU development policy to be the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, while also contributing to fostering sustainable economic, social and environmental development in developing countries*;

    15. Emphasises that inadequate investment in agrifood systems continues to aggravate food insecurity; stresses that a strategic approach that ensures better alignment and synergy among the different sources of financing, particularly in developing countries*, is needed to address food insecurity and malnutrition;

    16. Underlines the importance of fostering stronger, more inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships that fully consider the views and standpoints of our development partner countries – at national, regional and local levels – as well as those of other stakeholders such as international institutions, development banks, non-governmental and civil society organisations, academia and think tanks; believes these development partnerships should be based on equality and tailored to reflect the capacities and needs of partner countries, as outlined in the European Consensus on Development; considers that, while financial support for partner countries is often essential, it cannot fully replace domestic efforts, but should complement them with the aim of catalysing economic growth, strengthening social protection systems and supporting investments in comprehensive human development, particularly education and job creation, which are key tools in eradicating poverty; underlines, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, that partnerships should be grounded in mutual interests and shared values, prioritising sustainable development and the needs of people; stresses the importance of respecting human rights and ensuring a people-centred approach;

    17. Stresses the importance of transparency, accountability and proper oversight, emphasising that all EU funding for development cooperation must be carefully managed and monitored to prevent misuse, diversion, or inefficiency, while ensuring that resources are directed towards projects and initiatives that achieve the greatest positive impact in terms of the SDGS;

    Debt

    18. In view of the increasing number of low-income countries in debt distress or at high risk thereof; calls for the opening of an intergovernmental process to set up a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt to address responsible financing with the purpose of preventing and resolving unsustainable debts; urges the EU and its Member States to support this process, to ensure fair burden-sharing among all creditors, including multilateral development banks, where necessary, without jeopardising MDBs’ financial health, to deal in particular with problems such as enormous delays in implementing restructurings and the lack of a common understanding and enforceable rules as regards the comparability of treatment of official and private creditors;

    19. Considers that the reform of the current debt structure should provide countries in the Global South with fair and lasting solutions to a crisis that is already having devastating effects on populations, particularly on women and the most vulnerable communities;

    20. Believes that, in many cases, only general debt relief and cancellation of debt, free of economic policy conditions and accepted by all creditors, can put a country back on a sustainable path of financing, instead of deferring debt repayments; stresses the need to develop domestic legislation to enforce private creditor’s participation in debt restructuring deals;

    21. Finds, however, that any such debt relief must be accompanied by internationally agreed principles on responsible borrowing and lending, including implementation and monitoring mechanisms, alongside enhanced transparency and accountability standards, capacity building and efforts to combat corruption; highlights that, in order to be effective, responsible lending and borrowing principles need to go beyond voluntary approaches; highlights in this context the importance of committing to international human rights, civic and civil society engagement;

    22. Recognises that women are often overrepresented in the public sector, and thereby disproportionally vulnerable to and impacted by budget cuts; emphasises therefore the importance of including a gender perspective in debt collection;

    23. Emphasises the need for enhanced international cooperation to address the changing creditor structure, where private creditors now hold more than a quarter of the external debt stock of developing countries*, and new bilateral creditors outside the Paris Club are involved in debt restructuring efforts, particularly in jurisdictions governing significant portions of sovereign debt, such as New York and the United Kingdom;

    24. Stresses the importance of increasing public and grants-based finance for climate mitigation and adaptation, and that climate finance in the form of loans risks further aggravating the debt distress of low- and middle-income countries; notes that only 50 % of the EU’s total climate finance continues to be provided in the form of grants; urges the EU and all Member States to increase grant-based finance, particularly for adaptation, and especially for least developed countries and small island developing states*;

    25. Calls for closer and stronger cooperation and coordination between the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European External Action Service and EU delegations, particularly in developing countries* in fragile contexts, in order to facilitate discussions and cooperation with relevant actors on the ground in order to identify the most effective projects;

    26. Urges the UN member states to develop a harmonised framework to strengthen domestic sovereign debt restructuring laws across its member countries, with the aim of facilitating more efficient and equitable debt treatment;

    27. Emphasises the need for greater policy coherence in addressing sovereign debt issues, aligning tax, budgetary, and development policies to effectively respond to cross-cutting challenges such as climate change and inequality;

    Reform of the international financial architecture

    28. Calls for an increase in the financing power of MDBs, and the expansion of their mandates to tackle global challenges;

    29. Calls for grants and highly concessional financing of the ecological transition, in particular for mobilising more resources for adaptation and the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund; in addition, believes that all public lenders – governments, MDBs and other official lenders, including the IMF – should include, in their contracts, state-contingent clauses that are tied to climate and other economic exogenous shocks;

    30. Considers it necessary to guarantee new, additional, predictable funding that is readily accessible to women, indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable communities;

    31. Calls for the implementation of a rules-based, automatic quota reallocation system in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to better reflect the changing global economic landscape and ensure fairer representation of emerging economies, as well as low income and least developed countries; in the meantime, calls for IMF special drawing rights to be rechannelled to developing countries* and multilateral development banks (MDBs), in line with the Bridgetown initiative, the UN Secretary-General’s SDG Stimulus and the initiatives of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and for such rights to continue to be regularly allocated; in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;

    32. Underlines that EU financing must uphold the EU’s role as the world’s leading provider of development aid and climate finance in line with the Union’s global obligations and commitments; calls for sustainable financing models that prioritise resilience, reduce fiscal dependence and support structural transformation to prevent recurrent financial distress in developing economies*;

    33. Welcomes the commitment to gender balance on executive boards of all international organisations in the Zero Draft on the FfD4 Outcome; supports the establishment of a joint committee for governance reforms in the Bretton Woods Institutions to enhance transparency, inclusivity, such as through a fairer representation in decision-making bodies and fair access to finance and diversity in leadership and staff;

    34. Underlines that civil society organisations and smaller non-governmental organisations as well as churches and faith-based organisations are key development partners, since they work closely together with populations on the ground and are therefore better acquainted with their needs, and retain a presence after many other aid providers have withdrawn; calls for the adoption of guidelines on partnerships with churches and faith-based organisations in the area of development cooperation;

    35. Recalls that the regulation of the financial system is essential to advancing towards the prevention and fair resolution of debt crises;

    36. Calls for stronger regulation of global commodity futures markets, which is especially important for food and fuel products, and digital financial markets; stresses equally the need to encourage appropriate finance for social and environmental objectives, while discouraging the financing of high-carbon activities;

    Private business and finance

    37. Emphasises again the crucial role of the mobilisation of private finance to close the financing gap in achieving the SDGs and calls for more action to facilitate private sector involvement in development cooperation and to encourage companies to invest in less developed countries; recalls, however, that private sector investment and blended finance instruments have not always proven to be effective or sufficient in least developed and fragile states, especially in critical public services such as health, education and social protection, and they cannot fully replace public investment, thus requiring special attention from international donors, governments and MDBs; recognises, however, the potential role of enhanced public-private partnerships (PPPs), particularly in the field of technical and vocational training, upskilling and reskilling;

    38. Recalls the need to promote investments in education and vocational training in order to prioritise sustainable job creation and contribute to achieving the SDGs; further notes that trade, investment and job creation are a vital part of EU engagement for development and are contributing to sustainable development;

    39. Underlines the lack of transparency regarding the functioning of the Global Gateway in EU partner countries and absence of clear mechanisms for assessing its impact, particularly in fragile contexts where the Global Gateway may not apply; emphasises that there must be a continuous evaluation of the Global Gateway to assess its effectiveness and strategic direction;

    40. Insists that a conducive business enabling environment is essential for private investment, including through the rule of law, transparency, good governance, anti-corruption measures, investor and consumer protection, and fair competition; calls on the Commission to monitor and further improve mechanisms that will provide a security guarantee for European investors, on the other hand, stresses the need to rebalance investors’ rights with obligations towards the host state i.e. by supporting the local economy through technology transfer and by utilising local labour and inputs, so as to ensure that FDI translates into wider socio-economic benefits for society; calls for further improved access to affordable financing for the informal sector, dominated by micro- and small businesses, often led by women; calls for scaled-up EIB guarantee programmes to financially support small and medium-sized enterprises;

    41. Recalls that the security landscape is a decisive factor for investments and for sustainable development; highlights in this context the role and activities of religious institutions, women and all civil-society actors in conflict resolution and management, contributing to peace and security; more generally, emphasises the interconnectedness of development and security and stresses the necessity of further advancing a clearly defined nexus between development, peace and security;

    42. Emphasises that blended public and private finance must be aligned with the SDGs, focusing on development and requiring frameworks and legislation that focus on sustainable business and finance, sustainability disclosure and transparency and the set-up of a global SDG finance taxonomy;

    43. Calls on the EU to constructively engage towards the adoption of the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises and to allow victims to seek redress;

    44. Calls for the establishment of a dedicated SDG investment facilitation mechanism supported by the international community to identify and develop investment-ready opportunities aligned with the SDGs in least developed countries, leveraging the UNDP SDG Investor Platform’s success in identifying over 600 investment opportunity areas in emerging markets; recalls that SMEs play an important role in achieving the SDGs and therefore need to be encouraged and incentivised by EU policies to actively participate in initiatives contributing to sustainable development in developing countries*; also urges the EU and its Member States to prioritise allocation of grants and concessional financing based on vulnerabilities, namely in LDCs, fragile or conflict-affected countries, and to engage in coordination with relevant stakeholders including civil society actors;

    45. Urges the expansion of innovative financing mechanisms to mobilise private capital for SDG-aligned projects in LDCs and fragile states, emphasising the need to double current finance flows to nature-based solutions from USD 154 billion to at least USD 384 billion per year by 2025 to effectively address biodiversity loss, land degradation ecosystem destruction and climate change;

    46. Stresses the importance of capacity building and technical assistance for LDCs to develop long-term viable and SDG-aligned projects, advance human development and improve their investment climates, thereby attracting more private sector investment in critical sectors such as renewable energy, healthcare, and sustainable agriculture;

    47. Advocates the creation of a global risk mitigation facility consolidated within current UN-frameworks to address the higher perceived risks and borrowing costs faced by low- and middle-income countries; calls for the regulation of the credit rating system, which currently benefits countries in the Global North disproportionately over those in the Global South, which pay on average twice as much interest on their sovereign debt compared to developed countries, to address these higher perceived risks and borrowing costs;

    48. Emphasises the need for clearly defined access to development finance for local and regional governments in partner countries to ensure more balanced and transparent allocation of resources; stresses that overly centralised funding structures risk reinforcing inefficiencies and the politically motivated distribution of funds; underlines that empowering local governments – many of which play a crucial role in delivering public services and fostering inclusive economic development – would enhance community-based investments, accountability and governance reforms;

    49. Emphasises the need to promote PPPs and private investments, which drive economic growth and sustainable regional development;

    50. Highlights that PPPs are needed to cover the financial gap for development objectives in partner countries, further notes that private sector investments also need to serve the development of local communities and encourage, in this context, investments in education and vocational training;

    51. Highlights the special challenges faced by persons with disabilities and their families in terms of accessing development aid; calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities to be taken into account in development financing;

    Tax cooperation

    52. Welcomes the two-pillar solution for addressing the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation and globalisation of the economy, as agreed by the members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, as a step forward; takes note, however, that a group of developing countries* has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, highlighting concerns around equity and inclusivity within the OECD Inclusive Framework; regrets that Pillar 1 on reallocation of taxing rights has still not entered into force and calls for the acceleration of its implementation, ensuring a fair reallocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions, particularly benefiting developing countries*; calls for the EU and its Member States to ensure that the agreed global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 % for multinational enterprises is effectively applied, and urges the EU to support capacity building initiatives in developing* countries to effectively implement that minimum tax rate, ensuring they can benefit from the new rules and increase their domestic resource mobilisation;

    53. Urges the international community to take concrete steps in the creation and implementation of a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation; takes the view that this UN Convention on Tax should be designed with a view to ensuring a fair division of taxing rights between nation states, and, while duly considering national tax sovereignty, support efforts to tackle harmful tax practices and illicit financial flows; stresses, in this context, that the EU should play a proactive role in enabling developing countries* to mobilise domestic resources, in particular through enhanced tax governance, and that the EU should take the lead in combating illicit financial flows;

    54. Advocates further assistance for developing countries* and international cooperation for the purpose of strengthening tax systems, transparency and accountability in public financial management systems and of increasing domestic resource mobilisation, including through the digitalisation of tax systems and administrations;

    55. Supports the decision of G20 finance ministers to ensure that ultra-high net worth individuals are taxed effectively; considers that Brazil’s initiative at the latest G20 summit for a coordinated minimum tax on ultrahigh net worth individuals equal to 2 % of their wealth, which it is estimated would raise up to USD 250 billion annually, is worth further consideration;

    56. Emphasises the need to continue working on efforts to combat illicit financial flows, in particular out of low- and middle-income countries, and corruption, inter alia by investing in human capacities and skills, digitalisation, building up accessible and interoperable data, strengthening governance structures, enhancing regulatory frameworks and promoting regional cooperation;

    57. Recalls that the extractive sector in Africa is particularly prone to illicit outflows; takes the view that the review of tax treaties should aim to strengthen the bargaining position of host governments so they can obtain better returns from their natural resources and stimulate diversification of their economies; in addition, believes that the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) should be made mandatory and extended to focus not only on governments but also on producer firms and commodity trading companies;

    58. Advocates the creation of a global beneficial ownership registry to enhance transparency and combat tax evasion and illicit financial flows, building on existing EU initiatives in this area;

    Official development assistance (ODA) and financing development cooperation

    59. Emphasises that, despite the EU and its Member States remaining the largest global ODA provider, accounting for 42 % of global ODA in 2022 and 2023, the collective ODA/gross national income ratio has declined from 0.56 % in 2022 to 0.51 % in 2023, falling well short of the 0.7 % target; calls for urgent action to address the cumulative shortfall in meeting the 0.7 % target; is alarmed by the worrying trends that further cut ODA in many Member States and in the EU budget as well as by other leading global donors, leading to a further increase in the global financing gap for development; encourages Member States to increase their ODA budgets in the light of the current geopolitical situation; stresses the need to use development cooperation efficiently, to invest more specifically in those partner countries that promote, among other things, democratic reform efforts, access to social security systems and economic self-reliance;

    60. Rejects the idea that the traditional donor-recipient model has become obsolete and that ODA is no longer relevant; underlines that, despite evolving financing mechanisms and partnerships, ODA remains a vital tool for poverty reduction, addressing inequalities, and supporting the most vulnerable communities, particularly in fragile countries and LDCs;

    61. Urges the EU and the Member States to prioritise reaching the immediate target of devoting 0.15 % of GNI to ODA for LDCs, and to take concrete actions to fulfil this commitment, with a view to rapidly scaling up efforts to achieve a level of 0.20 % of GNI as ODA for LDCs; notes that the impact of development finance also depends on the efficiency of implementation of funding;

    62. Urges the Commission to increase efforts to implement the development finance objectives under the GAP III, namely that 85 % of all new actions integrate a gender perspective and support gender equality;

    63. Regrets that women’s rights organisations receive less than 1 % of global ODA and SDG5 remains among the least-funded SDGs, although improvement on SDG5 has been shown to be a cross-cutting driver for sustainable development; reiterates that women-led organisations are often best adapted to respond to humanitarian crises; calls on the international community to set ambitious targets for funding to women’s rights organisations;

    64. Expresses concern over the increasing trend of tied aid, which reached EUR 4.4 billion (6.5 % of total bilateral ODA) in 2022, and calls for measures to reverse this trend and ensure that ODA primarily benefits partner countries rather than donor economies;

    65. Calls on the EU and the Member States to devote 15 % of their ODA to education by 2030;

    66. Calls on the EU and the Member States to ensure that ODA includes long-term, sustainable funding for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), guaranteeing access to essential services for Palestinian refugees and preventing further humanitarian crises;

    67. Emphasises that education must remain a central pillar of EU development assistance, including continued support for UNRWA schools, which provide education to over 500 000 Palestinian children, ensuring their right to quality education despite ongoing displacement and conflict;

    68. Stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to development financing, aligning the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, while ensuring that the allocation of EUR 79.5 billion for 2021-2027 is used effectively to address global challenges; urges the creation of a system for Parliamentary oversight of NDICI-capital flows to ensure their alignment with the dedicated targets for development;

    69. Reiterates the urgent need to rethink and reform global governance of international development cooperation given the suspension of USAID and reductions in global aid by countries such as the UK, Netherlands, Belgium etc.; stresses that reform to the international financial architecture must be underpinned by a commitment to multilateralism and fit for a more crisis-prone world;

    °

    ° °

    70. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the European Investment Bank and the United Nations.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    June 6, 2025
  • DBT, Jan Dhan schemes revolutionised welfare delivery in India: FM Sitharaman

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Several groundbreaking financial inclusion schemes by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government have revolutionised welfare delivery in India in the last 11 years, by plugging leakages and ensuring transparency, said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Thursday.

    Over the past decade, the NDA government has taken pathbreaking steps to uplift several people from the clutches of poverty, focussing on empowerment, infrastructure and inclusion.

    “Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) has revolutionised welfare delivery in India, by plugging leakages and ensuring transparency. Over 1,200 government schemes now leverage DBT, enabling direct transfer of Rs 44 lakh crore to beneficiaries’ bank accounts,” said FM Sitharaman in a post on X.

    This system has already saved the nation Rs 3.48 lakh crore in leakages and inefficiencies, she informed.

    Also, PM MUDRA Yojana has given wings to grassroots dreams and made entrepreneurship inclusive.

    “Under this scheme, over 52 crore loans worth Rs 33 lakh crore have been sanctioned, out of which 68 per cent belong to women,” said the Finance Minister.

    PM Jan Dhan Yojana has made banking universal. Under the world’s largest financial inclusion programme, 55.44 crore accounts have been opened, out of which 55.7 per cent are held by women, said the Finance Minister.

    According to PM Modi, the push for DBT, digital inclusion and rural infrastructure has ensured transparency and faster delivery of benefits till the last mile.

    Since the money goes directly into the bank accounts of beneficiaries, the leakage has been curbed, which has resulted in a halving of subsidy allocations from 16 per cent to 9 per cent of total expenditure, government data showed in April.

    “It is due to this that over 25 crore people have defeated poverty. The NDA remains committed to building an inclusive and self-reliant India, where every citizen has the opportunity to live with dignity,” said PM Modi in a post on X.

    (IANS)

     

    June 5, 2025
  • PM Modi reiterates commitment to welfare of the poor as NDA completes 11 years

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday reiterated his government’s unwavering commitment to the welfare of the poor, calling the past 11 years of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) rule a period of transformative and inclusive governance. 
     
    In a post on X, Prime Minister Modi said the government’s sustained efforts had helped lift more than 25 crore people out of poverty. “Over the past decade, the NDA Government has taken pathbreaking steps to uplift several people from the clutches of poverty, focussing on empowerment, infrastructure and inclusion,” he said. Citing key welfare schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, PM Ujjwala Yojana, Jan Dhan Yojana and Ayushman Bharat, the Prime Minister said these initiatives had expanded access to housing, clean cooking fuel, banking and healthcare, particularly for marginalised communities.
     
    The Prime Minister also underlined the role of Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), digital inclusion, and investments in rural infrastructure in ensuring the transparent and efficient delivery of benefits. According to him, these initiatives, driven by a governance model rooted in compassion, have ensured that help reaches the last mile, offering citizens the dignity of self-reliance.
     
    The NDA government, he said, remains committed to building an inclusive and self-reliant India—“where every citizen has the opportunity to live with dignity.”
     
    A key element of this welfare architecture has been the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY), a food security programme launched in 2020 as part of the Atmanirbhar Bharat package. Initially introduced to provide free food grains to migrants and economically vulnerable sections during the COVID-19 pandemic, the scheme has undergone several extensions over the past few years.
     
    In its latest phase, the PMGKAY has been extended for five years starting January 1, 2024, at an estimated cost of ₹11.80 lakh crore. More than 81 crore beneficiaries—including Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households and Priority Households (PHH) identified under the National Food Security Act (NFSA)—will receive free food grains as per their monthly entitlements.
     
    Under the scheme, wheat is being distributed in six states and Union Territories—Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Chandigarh, Delhi and Gujarat—while rice is allocated to the rest of the country. Beneficiaries include families falling under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and Priority Household (PHH) categories, as identified by respective state governments and UT administrations.
     
    AAY households are those headed by widows, the terminally ill, disabled or elderly persons without assured means of subsistence. Other eligible groups include primitive tribal families, landless agricultural labourers, marginal farmers, rural artisans, slum dwellers, daily-wage earners in the informal sector, and Below Poverty Line (BPL) families of HIV-positive individuals.
     
    Earlier in the evening, the Prime Minister also chaired a meeting of the Union Council of Ministers, though no official details from the meeting were immediately released.
    June 5, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Russia: Brazilian journalist gets to know people’s democracy in its entirety in China

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    On April 21, the Brazilian magazine Forum published an article by Rafael Henrique Zebetto entitled “Understanding China’s People’s Democracy in the Whole Process in Practice.”

    On April 17 this year, I attended a meeting with Beijing government officials in our local area along with four other foreign colleagues. The officials wanted to hear our experiences, observations, and suggestions so as to better understand the actual situation of foreign experts in the city, identify existing problems, and improve relevant policies based on these. Such meetings are a common practice in China’s daily life: officials at various levels regularly communicate with representatives from various walks of life to learn about the difficulties people face and collect suggestions for solutions. This is an important part of China’s people’s democracy in the whole process.

    How is people’s democracy in the whole process put into practice? In my early years in China, I closely followed the progress of poverty alleviation work. I even had the opportunity to visit the most remote and poorest parts of the country to observe the process first-hand.

    One village woman in Xinjiang managed to escape poverty by opening a guesthouse with the support of the local government. She shared her extraordinary story with me. The woman spoke only Uyghur, while most of her guests were from eastern China and spoke Putonghua (standardized Mandarin). To communicate with her guests, she turned to the local grassroots organization of the Chinese Communist Party, which provided her with a volunteer translator.

    These grassroots organizations create a great advantage in the system of state governance because they are able to formulate policies that take into account local needs, have a deep understanding of local problems and development prospects, and maintain close and constant contact with the people.

    In addition, Chinese citizens have channels to approach government bodies with questions, criticism, and suggestions. For example, the 12345 hotline in some major cities provides service in foreign languages. In addition to the work of grassroots committees and feedback channels, the government also organizes thematic forums in which officials discuss with representatives of various sectors of society the challenges and difficulties associated with the provision of public services. In addition, various surveys are regularly conducted to collect data for the subsequent development and improvement of specific policies.

    People’s democracy in the whole process encourages the participation of the Chinese people, promotes social harmony and brings tangible results.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

    June 5, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner, Kaine, Colleagues Press Trump Administration for Answers and Demand Reversal of Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Afghans Living in the U.S.

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, (both D-VA) joined nearly 100 of their congressional colleagues in pressing the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals living in the United States. Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, nearly 200,000 Afghans came to the U.S. From 2018 to 2022, nearly 20,000 of these individuals settled in Virginia—the most of any state after California.
    In the letter sent to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lawmakers noted the thousands of lives this decision could endanger—particularly the lives of many Afghans who supported the U.S. efforts during the war in Afghanistan and face significant danger upon their return to Afghanistan. The lawmakers also urged the Trump Administration to reverse course and continue TPS for Afghans.
    “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country,” the lawmakers wrote. “Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.”
    The lawmakers continued, “The Secretary of Homeland Security ‘may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.’  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.”
    “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls,” the lawmakers stressed.
    The lawmakers closed the letter requesting the following information:
    Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023. 
    The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.
    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS.
    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan.
    What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan?
    In addition to Warner and Kaine, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). The letter is signed by 72 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    A copy of the letter is available here and below.
    Dear Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio:
    We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security “may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.”  This is why, following the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, in May 2022 the U.S. designated Afghanistan for TPS.  In September 2023, the U.S. extended and redesignated TPS for Afghanistan. The Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan negatively impacts approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals.
    In your announcement, you state that “there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.”  But you also concede that threats of violence and terrorism, as well as humanitarian concerns, remain.  The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, they will be caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP.  According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, especially against women and girls. Women and girls are banned from attending secondary school or university and are unable to move freely. The Taliban also continues to detain and torture journalists, curtailing free speech and media. The 2023 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report covering Afghanistan found that women’s rights rapidly declined and restrictions on freedom of expression increased. The horrific human rights conditions in Afghanistan are unsafe for Afghan nationals to return to and returning would put their personal safety at immediate risk.
    We are also deeply concerned about the State Department Human Rights Report finding that widespread arbitrary and unlawful killings against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government have occurred.  Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military should not be put in harm’s way because they supported the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This would be a betrayal of those who bravely served alongside our servicemembers for nearly two decades.
    Afghan civilians still face devastating humanitarian and economic conditions. Over half of the population in Afghanistan needs urgent humanitarian assistance. Human Rights Watch reports that in 2024, 12.4 million people were facing food insecurity and 2.9 million were at emergency levels of hunger.  The World Bank also found that in Afghanistan, as of May 2025, “per capita income has stagnated, while poverty and food insecurity remain pressing challenges, exacerbated by high unemployment and restrictions on women’s economic participation.” 
    The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls.
    In August 2021, Americans welcomed Afghan nationals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia with open arms, and we refuse to turn our backs on them now.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to terminate TPS for Afghanistan and ask that you respond to the following requests no later than two weeks of receipt of this letter:
    Please provide any reports that credibly determine that conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023. 
    The TPS termination announcement stated that “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.
    Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS.
    Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan.
    What steps are you taking to ensure that Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan?
    Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and we hope to receive your responses soon.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 5, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján, Klobuchar Lead Senate Spotlight Forum on Devastating Impact of GOP SNAP Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    Spotlight Forum Follows CBO Analysis Warning That Millions of Food-Insecure Americans Will Face Higher Food Costs;

    Lawmakers, Experts Warn of National Hunger Crisis and State Budget Shortfalls Under GOP Proposal

    More photos available HERE.

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research, and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, led a Senate Spotlight Forum titled “Hunger by Design: The GOP’s Assault on SNAP,” bringing together national experts and advocates to highlight the dangerous consequences of Congressional Republicans’ proposal to slash the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $300 billion.

    SNAP is a lifeline for over 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, 8 million seniors, 4 million people with disabilities, and 1.2 million veterans. The forum followed House Republicans’ Big, Beautiful Betrayal of American families – cutting SNAP by 30% – the largest cut in the program’s history. These cuts will raise grocery costs for more than 4 million Americans in need by taking away or reducing their food assistance.

    “The House Republican bill proposes the deepest cuts to SNAP in American history – gutting $300 billion in nutrition assistance and forcing states to take on more than $150 billion in costs. This would dismantle one of our most effective anti-poverty programs and hurt millions of Americans – including children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities,” said Senator Luján. “In New Mexico, I’ve heard directly from food banks, farmers, and families already stretched thin. These cuts would only make it harder for them to get by.

    “I was honored to lead this forum alongside Senator Klobuchar and to stand with my Democratic colleagues in fighting these extreme GOP cuts. I was especially proud to elevate the voice of Katy Anderson from Roadrunner Food Bank of New Mexico, who brought critical insight into how these cuts would impact communities on the ground. The testimony of our witnesses reminded us what’s really at stake – and why we have to keep fighting,” continued Senator Luján. 

    “House Republicans’ bill will rip the rug out from under families who count on SNAP to put food on the table. It will mean more seniors, children, veterans, and people with disabilities will go to bed hungry,” said Senator Klobuchar.

    “The House Republican bill will upend state budgets – forcing states to make impossible choices between food assistance and other priorities, like education, health, and public safety. It will devastate our farmers, who stand to lose $35 billion in revenue over the next decade. It will mean more food pantries with empty shelves. These cuts will cost jobs and wages for everyone who is a part of the food system – from truck drivers to local grocers. SNAP supports nearly 390,000 jobs and $20 billion in wages every year for workers. We are fighting this in the Senate every step of the way,” continued Senator Klobuchar.

    Witnesses warned that the House bill would reduce or terminate food assistance for millions and shift over $150 billion in costs to states, forcing them to cut benefits or restrict eligibility. These changes could strain state budgets, particularly when combined with similar proposed Medicaid cuts.

    The forum featured testimony from:

    • Dr. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Margaret Walker Alexander Professor, Northwestern University
    • Barbara C. Guinn, Commissioner, NY State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
    • Katy Anderson, Vice President of Strategy, Partnerships and Advocacy, Roadrunner Food Bank of New Mexico
    • Jade Johnson, Mother and Student

    “SNAP provides very important help to a very wide range of Americans who struggle to put food on the table. The provisions in the recently passed House bill would cause substantial harm to children, older Americans, and low-wage workers. This new requirement for states to pay for up to 25% of SNAP benefits would substantially reduce the effectiveness of the program in times of economic downturn,” said Dr. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach in her opening statement.

    “The cuts put forward by the recently passed House reconciliation bill would harm individuals and states nationwide by forcing billions of dollars in annual cost shifts alongside unprecedented administrative hurdles that will harm households that rely on SNAP,” said Barbara C. Guinn in her opening statement.

    “SNAP continues to be our country’s most important and effective anti-hunger program. It plays an important role in New Mexico, with 21 percent of the state’s residents relying on the program in order to ensure access to food. More than 61 percent of participants are in families with children, 31 percent are in families with members who are older adults or are disabled, and 43% are in working families. The vast majority of SNAP recipients in New Mexico and across the country are children and seniors,” said Katy Anderson in her opening statement. 

    “SNAP benefits are the only way we can regularly afford to put food on the table. I would never have time to work a third job to make up for the loss of my SNAP benefits and care for my child effectively. With costs going up on things like rent and other basic necessities, my income gets completely eaten up before I am able to even think about buying food,” said Jade Johnson in her opening statement. 

    The lawmakers and experts warned that an estimated 500,000 children would lose school meals tied to SNAP eligibility; emergency food providers, already stretched thin, would be unable to meet the increased demand; and farmers, rural grocery stores, and small businesses would see declines in revenue.

    Since its creation, SNAP has operated with a consistent national benefit structure that ensures Americans, no matter where they live, can access basic nutrition. The proposed changes would undermine that structure and deepen hunger across the country.

    Footage of the full forum can be found HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    June 5, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Over half a million more children to get free school meals

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Over half a million more children to get free school meals

    New entitlement to free school meals for all children in household on Universal Credit.

    Over half a million more children will benefit from a free nutritious meal every school day, as the government puts £500 back into parents’ pockets every year by expanding eligibility for free school meals.

    From the start of the 2026 school year, every pupil whose household is on Universal Credit will have a new entitlement to free school meals. This will make life easier and more affordable for parents who struggle the most, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change to break down barriers to opportunity and give children the best start in life.  

    The unprecedented expansion will lift 100,000 children across England completely out of poverty. Giving children access to a nutritious meal during the school day also leads to higher attainment, improved behaviour and better outcomes – meaning they get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.

    Since 2018, children have only been eligible for free school meals if their household income is less than £7,400 per year, meaning hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty have been unable to access free school meals.

    The government’s historic new expansion to those on Universal Credit will change this and comes ahead of the Child Poverty Taskforce publishing its ten-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. It comes on top of targeted support for families being hit the hardest with the cost-of-living crisis, with urgent action including raising the national minimum wage, uprating benefits and supporting 700,000 families through the Fair Repayment Rate on Universal Credit deductions.

     Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:

    Working parents across the country are working tirelessly to provide for their families but are being held back by cost-of-living pressures.

    My government is taking action to ease those pressures. Feeding more children every day, for free, is one of the biggest interventions we can make to put more money in parents’ pockets, tackle the stain of poverty, and set children up to learn.

    This expansion is a truly historic moment for our country, helping families who need it most and delivering our Plan for Change to give every child, no matter their background, the same chance to succeed.

    Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said:

    It is the moral mission of this government to tackle the stain of child poverty, and today this government takes a giant step towards ending it with targeted support that puts money back in parents’ pockets.

    From free school meals to free breakfast clubs, breaking the cycle of child poverty is at the heart of our Plan for Change to cut the unfair link between background and success.

    We believe that background shouldn’t mean destiny. Today’s historic step will help us to deliver excellence everywhere, for every child and give more young people the chance to get on in life.

    The Government is also offering more than £13 million in funding to 12 food charities across England to redistribute thousands of tonnes of fresh produce directly from farms to fight food poverty in communities.

    The Tackling Food Surplus at the Farm Gate scheme is helping farms and organisations to work collaboratively to ensure edible food that might have been left in fields instead ends up on the plates of those who need it, including schoolchildren.

    Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said:

    Poverty robs children of opportunities and damages their future prospects. This is a moral scar on our society we are committed to tackling.

    By expanding Free School Meals to all families on Universal Credit, we’re ending the impossible choice thousands of our hardest grafting families must make between paying bills and feeding their children.

    This is just the latest step of our Plan for Change to put extra pounds in people’s pockets – a downpayment on our Child Poverty Strategy, building on our expansion of free breakfast clubs, our national minimum wage boost and our cap on Universal Credit deductions through the Fair Repayment Rate.

    To ensure quality and nutrition in meals for the future, the government is also acting quickly with experts across the sector to revise the School Food Standards, so every school is supported with the latest nutrition guidance.

    This new entitlement will apply to children in all settings where free school meals are currently delivered, including schools, school-based nurseries and Further Education settings. We expect the majority of schools will allow parents to apply before the start of the school year 2026, by providing their National Insurance Number to check their eligibility.

    Schools and local authorities will continue to receive pupil premium and home to school transport extended rights funding based on the existing free school meals threshold. 

    This is just the latest step in the government’s Plan for Change to break the unfair link between background and opportunity, including rolling out free breakfast clubs, expanding government-funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents and commitment to cap the number of branded school uniform items.

    Nick Harrison, CEO of the Sutton Trust, said: 

    This is a significant step towards taking hunger out of the classroom. Children can’t learn effectively when hungry, so this announcement not only helps to tackle the effects of child poverty, but will also likely help improve education outcomes for disadvantaged young people.

    Giving free school meals to all families who are eligible for Universal Credit is also easier for parents to understand, so has the potential to increase take up rates. This is an important milestone in delivering on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.

    Kate Anstey, head of education policy at Child Poverty Action Group said: 

    This is fantastic news and a game-changer for children and families.  

    At last more kids will get the food they need to learn and thrive and millions of parents struggling to make ends meet will get a bit of breathing space.

    We hope this is a sign of what’s to come in autumn’s child poverty strategy, with government taking more action to meet its manifesto commitment to reduce child poverty in the UK. 

    From April 2026 until the end of parliament, millions of households are set to receive a permanent yearly above inflation boost to Universal Credit. The increase, a key element of the Government’s welfare reforms to be laid before Parliament, will tackle the destitution caused by years of inaction that has left the value of the standard allowance at a 40 year low by the early 2020s.

    DfE media enquiries

    Central newsdesk – for journalists 020 7783 8300

    Share this page

    The following links open in a new tab

    • Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
    • Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

    Updates to this page

    Published 4 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    June 5, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on strengthening rural areas in the EU through cohesion policy – A10-0092/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on strengthening rural areas in the EU through cohesion policy

    (2024/2105(INI))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the Commission report of 27 March 2024 entitled ‘The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward’ (COM(2024)0450),

    – having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on EU border regions: living labs of European integration[1],

    – having regard to its resolution of 8 May 2025 on the ninth report on economic and social cohesion[2],

    – having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 15 March 2023 on targets and tools for a smart rural Europe[3],

    – having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2022 on enhancing Cohesion Policy support for regions with geographic and demographic handicaps  (Article 174 TFEU)[4],

    – having regard to Articles 39, 174, 175 and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

    – having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027[5],

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)[6],

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013[7],

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013[8],

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy[9],

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe Programme and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240[10],

    – having regard to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds[11],

    – having regard to Principle 20 of the European Pillar of Social Rights on access to essential services,

    – having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2017 on women and their roles in rural areas[12],

    – having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2022 on the role of cohesion policy in promoting innovative and smart transformation and regional ICT connectivity[13],

    – having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2022 on a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas – towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040[14],

    – having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions[15],

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 27 March 2024 on the 9th Cohesion Report (COM(2024)0149),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 30 June 2021 entitled ‘A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas – Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040’ (COM(2021)0345),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2025 entitled ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food – Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations (COM(2025)0075),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions’ (COM(2022)0198),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 25 March 2021 on an action plan for the development of organic production (COM(2021)0141),

    – having regard to the Commission report of 17 June 2020 on the impact of demographic change (COM(2020)0241),

    – having regard to the Commission green paper of 27 January 2021 on ageing – fostering solidarity and responsibility between generations (COM(2021)0050),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 – Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 17 November 2021 entitled ‘EU Soil Strategy for 2030 – Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate’ (COM(2021)0699),

    – having regard to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, adopted by the Human Rights Council on 28 September 2018,

    – having regard to general recommendation No 34 (2016) of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the rights of rural women, adopted on 7 March 2016,

    – having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 on the EU action plan for organic agriculture[16],

    – having regard to the study commissioned by Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development entitled ‘The future of the European Farming Model: Socio-economic and territorial implications of the decline in the number of farms and farmers in the EU’, published by the Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies in April 2022,

    – having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2022 on the need for an urgent EU action plan to ensure food security inside and outside the EU in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine[17],

    – having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2018 on addressing the specific needs of rural, mountainous and remote areas[18],

    – having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives[19],

    – having regard to the Commission report of August 2019 entitled ‘Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural areas’[20],

    – having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 26 January 2022 entitled ‘A long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas’[21],

    – having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 19 February 2025 entitled ‘How post-27 LEADER and CLLD programming could contribute to better implementation of the long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas’[22],

    – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 March 2022 entitled ‘Long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas’[23],

    – having regard to its resolution of 19 October 2023 on generational renewal in the EU farms of the future[24],

    – having regard to Enrico Letta’s report on the future of the single market, published in April 2024,

    – having regard to the study requested by Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development, entitled ‘EU Cohesion Policy in non-urban areas’, published by the Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies in September 2020,

    – having regard to the declaration on the future of rural areas and rural development policy in the European Union, adopted by the Rural Pact Coordination Group on 12 December 2024,

    – having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A10-0092/2025),

    A. whereas, currently, 137 million European citizens – nearly one in three – live in rural areas, which account for approximately 83 % of the EU’s territory; whereas one third of the population of rural areas lives in a border region; whereas 77 % of land used for farming (134 million hectares) and 79 % of forest (148 million hectares) are located in rural areas;

    B. whereas according to Eurostat, average income in rural areas is 87.5 % of average income in urban areas;

    C. whereas there are still disparities in cohesion policy funding between urban and rural areas, with urban areas receiving three times more cohesion funding than rural areas[25];

    D. whereas since 1991, in rural areas, the LEADER method, subsequently covered by the community-led local development policy instrument (CLLD) through local action groups (LAGs), has demonstrated that it can mobilise and empower local actors around innovative and tailored strategies;

    E. whereas rural areas are a cornerstone of the European economy, home to many ‘hidden European Champions’, and are integral to Europe’s cultural diversity; whereas they are essential for food production and security, serving as guardians of our landscapes, living rural heritage, social and cultural traditions; whereas they play a key role in promoting the strategic autonomy of the EU through the agricultural sector, which remains a strategic priority of the EU; whereas rural areas symbolise many of the aspects that make Europe attractive and liveable;

    F. whereas the promotion of minority languages can enhance awareness of local specificities, increasing the attractiveness of tourism and fostering economic activities linked to culture, education, craftsmanship and traditional products;

    G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a shift in perception among the public, who have recognised the potential of rural areas as a solution to the challenges arising from crises by providing a safer, more sustainable and reliable living environment;

    H. whereas cohesion policy funds alone cannot answer the increasing needs and challenges faced by rural areas in the EU; whereas greater synergies and complementarities with other EU policies, in particular with the common agricultural policy (CAP), must be ensured in order to maximise the impact of investments in rural areas, advancing the modernisation of agriculture and the development of essential services and infrastructure;

    I. whereas over 40 % of land in rural areas is used for agriculture yet sadly the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fisheries to rural regions has decreased, both in economic and employment terms, to 12 % of all jobs and 4 % of gross value added;

    J. whereas Parliament’s study on the future of the European farming model notes that the EU could lose 6.4 million farms by 2040, falling from 10.3 million in 2016 to 3.9 million;

    K. whereas, in accordance with Articles 174, 175 and 349 TFEU, the EU aims to reduce development gaps between the different regions and coordinate its policies, including using the European Structural and Investment Funds to achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, with a particular focus on rural areas;

    L. whereas all regions must remain eligible for funding in future cohesion policy, even strong regions facing significant transformation challenges;

    M. whereas regional actors have a deeper understanding of which projects should be prioritised for support through cohesion funds, ensuring that resources are allocated in a way that best meets the specific needs of their territories;

    N. whereas cohesion policy funds to rural areas should be further simplified with the objective of reducing administrative burdens, not only for the final beneficiaries but also for the relevant authorities, thereby also contributing to increased absorption rates;

    O. whereas rural areas in particular are facing demographic and structural challenges, such as ageing, population decline, brain drain, growing inequalities between men and women, disparities with urban areas, structural changes in the agricultural and forestry sectors, the consequences of natural disasters, the increase of energy and transport prices, a lack of services and infrastructure, in particular for vulnerable people and persons with disabilities, the impact of these challenges on income level and on the labour market, with a consequent higher unemployment rate, and a persistently large digital gap;

    P. whereas demographic challenges are particularly acute in the EU farming population, with the majority of farmers being over 50 years old;

    Q. whereas strengthening cohesion in rural areas requires the adoption of measures and initiatives aimed at supporting families, also by helping young people and parents in balancing family and professional life, thereby contributing to the sustainable development of those communities;

    R. whereas Europe’s rural areas and European farmers already play a crucial role in the climate transition, as they are the most affected by climate change both economically and socially, and whereas thanks to their efforts, some of the adverse impact of agriculture on the environment has been significantly reduced over the years; whereas the EU agricultural sector significantly reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 24 % between 1990 and 2021 and it is responsible for 72 % of renewable energy production and holds 78 % of the untapped potential;

    S. whereas demographic changes do not affect all countries and regions equally, but have a greater impact on less developed regions, as they exacerbate existing territorial and social imbalances; whereas solutions must be found for regional imbalances and for the uneven pace of convergence between regions, some of which remain stuck in a development trap; whereas less developed regions require particular attention and support, as is the case with the EU’s rural areas and the outermost regions, due to their specific characteristics;

    T. whereas the overall percentage of the population living in rural areas has fallen significantly across the EU over the past 50 years, particularly as a result of ageing and emigration; whereas the highest percentage of people over the age of 65 is found in rural areas[26]; whereas estimates suggest that by 2033 the population of Europe’s rural areas will have shrunk by 30 million people compared with 1993;

    U. whereas the lack of or poor access to healthcare, water services, affordable housing, transport, digital infrastructure, education, financial services and recreational and cultural activities worsen the reputation of regions, and particularly rural, borderland, inland, cross-border, mountainous, insular and outermost regions, as places to live and work, especially for women, young people, ageing populations and minorities; whereas cross-border areas are particularly affected by the lack of regional connectivity in terms of transport and digital infrastructure; whereas rural areas are strongly affected by the lack of stable employment opportunities, which forces young people, in particular women, to migrate;

    V. whereas the availability and quality of water play a critical role in ensuring equitable, sustainable and productive rural livelihoods;

    W. whereas greater emphasis should be placed on preventive measures to strengthen the resilience of Europe’s rural areas to natural disasters; whereas an integrated approach to water resources management is essential both to prevent floods and to cope with droughts, in particular through a coherent use of EU funds;

    X. whereas rural areas, especially in eastern, southern and Mediterranean Europe, are the most directly affected by energy poverty and face specific challenges related to desertification, forest fires, climate change and its associated asymmetrical risks, water resource scarcity and weak infrastructure, which require a targeted approach within cohesion policy;

    Y. whereas rural areas are home to the majority of the EU’s biodiversity, yet protected habitats and species remain in poor conservation status and continue to decline due to climate change and the degradation of soil and water quality, with a negative impact on natural resources; whereas biodiversity loss has severe economic consequences for the agricultural sector and negatively affects the attractiveness of rural tourism;

    Z. whereas the clean energy transition, the diversification of the economy and the expansion of renewable energy sources present significant opportunities for rural and less developed regions, allowing them to leverage their natural resources and geographic advantages and to exploit their full potential for the future production of renewable energy;

    AA. whereas these areas bear the brunt of depopulation, and whereas it is mainly young people leaving them as a result of job shortages and dim career prospects, and this fuels the rural exodus, resulting in an increased share of older residents and a greater risk of social isolation;

    AB. whereas rural areas have the highest share (12.6 %) of young people aged 15-29[27] not in employment, education or training (NEETs);

    AC. whereas generational renewal is one of the nine key objectives of the CAP;

    AD. whereas farms, dairy farms, wine-growers and olive oil producers across Europe go out of business every day, and few farms like these are managed by farmers below the age of 35; whereas the ambitious goals of the green transition entail opportunities and also risks for economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as for European agriculture;

    AE. whereas the way we produce food has shaped the landscapes that define Europe; whereas dynamic rural areas foster quality food production which in turn supports their economy; whereas reinvigorating these connections between food and territory and revitalising rural areas will be essential for the future of farming in Europe;

    AF. whereas a robust cohesion policy is essential to guaranteeing the effective application of the ‘right to stay’ principle in rural areas, which requires action on many levels, including by fostering economic stability and preventing depopulation; stresses that ensuring access to a basic set of public goods and services for all citizens, especially young people, regardless of where they live, is crucial; whereas it is necessary, to this end, to promote targeted investment in infrastructure, services, education, and innovation;

    1. Welcomes the Commission report of 27 March 2024 entitled ‘The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward’ and agrees with its overarching objectives;

    2. Takes note of the four areas of action underpinning the rural vision and the 30 actions making up the EU rural action plan; calls on the Commission and the Member States to place its implementation at the top of the agenda;

    3. Stresses the key role rural areas have to play in shaping the economic models and the social and territorial organisation of the various Member States, particularly as the cradle of agricultural and food production, but also as custodians of an irreplaceable cultural and landscape heritage; notes, however, that their significance remains under-appreciated and inadequately funded; believes that the EU has a duty to push for a true revival and regeneration of these areas, going to extra lengths to endow our rural areas with the right tools to overcome the considerable long-term challenges they are facing and which are having an ever greater impact on regional competitiveness and social cohesion, in order to preserve European diversity and ensure that the Union’s progress does not come at the expense of rural areas and their populations;

    4. Considers it important to develop short supply chains and to promoting the use of labelling schemes to acknowledge the quality and variety of traditional products from rural areas; stresses that public canteens, such as school and hospital canteens, can play a significant role in the development of short agrifood supply chains;

    5. Recognises the key role of small and medium-sized towns as development centres in rural regions and calls on the Commission and the Member States to specifically strengthen their economic, social and infrastructural functions, revitalise city centres, better utilise synergies between rural areas and large metropolitan regions, and ensure more balanced territorial development;

    6. Stresses the urgent need for measures to combat poverty in rural areas by developing targeted strategies to improve social security, create economic opportunities, and support particularly vulnerable populations, in order to break the cycle of poverty;

    7. Stresses that rural areas are key players in mitigating the effects of climate change; emphasises the need for increased investment in research and innovation for rural areas, particularly in the fields of sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, digital transformation and innovative mobility solutions, to enhance the competitiveness and resilience of rural regions and create energy self-sufficiency and new employment opportunities; encourages the sustainable management of forests and the prevention of forest fires, also by promoting the use of biomass which is gathered without harm to forest ecosystems;

    8. Calls for the expansion of renewable energy in rural areas based on their potential to reduce energy costs with the involvement of civil society and local communities; emphasises the need for financial incentives, measures such as renewable energy communities and simplified administrative processes to boost regional energy independence and sustainability while avoiding negative impacts on food production, land availability and prices, as well as on social cohesion; calls for a dedicated financing mechanism for the installation of photovoltaic, wind and other renewable energy sources;

    9. Calls for increased support for the preservation, restoration and conversion of older buildings, including historical buildings, churches and other places of worship, sports halls and schools in rural areas to improve energy efficiency, sustainability and safety; urges investments in the modernisation of public infrastructure while preserving historical structures where possible; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote targeted policies that support the renovation and energy-efficient retrofitting of rural housing, financial incentives for first-time rural homebuyers, in particular for young people and families, and the development of sustainable and affordable housing projects adapted to the needs of local communities that contribute to the attractiveness and revitalisation of these regions;

    10. Asks the Commission to assess and to implement Article 174, 175 and 349 TFEU in full to close the development gap among regions, including in relation to infrastructure, and to see to it that all EU policies not only apply the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle, but also that they follow a more assertive ‘promote cohesion’ approach wherever possible, particularly in rural areas and in areas particularly affected by industrial transition, demographic challenges and depopulation, and those at risk of depopulation, such as outermost regions, islands, border, cross-border and mountain regions;

    11. Calls on the Commission to devise a rural strategy for the post-2027 programming period; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure the incorporation of a rural dimension in relevant policies and to make sure that the strategy promotes the economic and social development of rural areas and to allocate specific resources to the modernisation of agriculture, supporting rural small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-up and promoting short supply chains in order to make rural areas more connected, competitive, resilient and attractive to young people and investors, thereby ensuring balanced and sustainable development in the long term and enhancing the quality of life; stresses, in this regard, the importance of having a truly effective rural proofing mechanism at EU level so to assess the potential of all relevant policies and to mitigate any possible negative impacts they may have on rural areas;

    12. Stresses that in order to ensure the long-term prosperity of rural areas and support a strong agricultural sector to maintain this prosperity in rural areas, it is essential to strengthen the synergies between EU Structural and Investment Funds and Horizon Europe, the EU’s flagship research and innovation programme, and the CAP in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF);

    13. Calls on the Commission to present, by 2027, a report on the application of the rural proofing mechanism to policies and interventions at EU level, as well as the results obtained;

    14. Calls on the Commission to prioritise focused investments and policy measures to support the transition to a new generation of farmers in order to modernise EU agriculture and create more opportunities in rural areas;

    15. Highlights the crucial role of cohesion policy for the development of rural areas as a decentralised, powerful tool for economic and social development, allowing all regions to tackle these specific challenges of the Union; underlines in this regard that cohesion policy should continue to be a key pillar of the MFF post-2027, with an allocation that is maintained at a minimum threshold equivalent to the current MFF 2021-2027 levels, ensuring its fundamental role in reducing regional disparities and shaping a more resilient and competitive Europe that leaves no one behind; calls for the option of providing adequate resources for rural and mountainous areas to be explored in the next cohesion policy framework and complementing GDP at regional level with other indicators; recalls that the fundamental principles of cohesion policy, such as partnership, multi-level-governance, a place-based approach and shared management, must be respected in order to foster development and to meet the specific needs and challenges of rural areas with a particular focus on tools supporting sustainable growth and development and youth and female employment, including among victims of violence against women, and improving services and infrastructure;

    16. Believes that smart specialisation and economic diversification strategies could promote more opportunities in rural areas; emphasises, in particular, the key importance of integrating the concept of smart villages into cohesion policy and of explicitly supporting the development of smart villages, with flexible funding and an integrated approach, as an innovative tool for enhancing the quality of life and revitalising rural areas and services through digital and social innovation and initiatives such as the promotion of working spaces in order to attract workers, including remote workers, and to contribute to revitalising local economies;

    17. Encourages initiatives that promote economic and social sustainability, including support for rural entrepreneurship, rural tourism and new business models based on innovation and digitalisation;

    18. Calls on the Commission to ensure a strong and holistic focus on the development of rural areas in the future cohesion policy, in such a way that all policy initiatives are consistent with the goal of reducing territorial disparities; believes it is essential to devise long-term strategies to support rural areas, centred on the principles of cohesion and sustainability and providing the necessary tools to address demographic, social and economic challenges, in order to ensure that these areas do not become forgotten places, but rather key players in Europe’s future without needing to continually depend on extraordinary measures; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to support the significant development of rural areas in the future cohesion policy, and to commit to setting up local info points and offering a platform and financial support to enable Member States to exchange information and best practice on funding possibilities, with a view to providing local authorities with effective support and assisting with resource management and the implementation of development initiatives; emphasises, furthermore, that the effective participation of regional, local and rural authorities and a strong administrative capacity are crucial for the reduction of the excessive administrative burden and complex requirements for recipients and for the effective execution of cohesion policy funds; highlights that multi-funding still appears difficult in some countries and calls on the Commission to enhance complementarities between the EAFRD and cohesion policy funds;

    19. Stresses the need for an integrated European strategy for the revitalisation of rural areas, including through the development of bio-districts, recognising their potential to diversify the rural economy by targeting fiscal, economic and social measures to maintain the active population; also highlights the value of introducing incentives for the relocation of health, education and public administration professionals, as well as the importance of partnerships between local authorities and the private sector for the creation of new jobs;

    20. Underlines that expanding integrated territorial investment (ITI) plans and unlocking their full potential could establish them as a cornerstone for integrated regional, local, and rural development; emphasises that strengthening ITIs’ role in rural areas is essential to foster territorial cohesion, enhance connectivity and drive inclusive economic growth by supporting key sectors such as agriculture, rural SMEs, tourism and renewable energy; calls, furthermore, for greater flexibility in ITI implementation, increased financial allocations and reinforced synergies with other EU funding mechanisms, including LEADER and CLLD, key instruments for fostering bottom-up participatory rural development and for keeping and restoring living and thriving local rural economies, to maximise impact and actively involve regional and local authorities and civil society in line with the partnership principle;

    21. Suggests that all relevant Directorates-General of the Commission conduct a territorial impact assessment of their respective policies at least twice per programming period; believes that these evaluations would establish a more precise baseline and identify ways to integrate the characteristics of rural areas into EU policies more effectively;

    22. Calls on the Member States to make full use of all measures supporting rural, inland, mountainous, insular and outermost regions, as well as cross-border regions and regions at the EU’s external borders, including those bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine which are most affected by the war, to mitigate economic disruption and to secure their future and prosperity; welcomes the new BRIDGEforEU Regulation and asks the Member States to implement it, enhancing the cooperation between cross-border regions to enable economies of scale when providing basic services and infrastructure in the rural areas affected;

    23. Stresses the diversity of the EU’s rural areas, for which the long-term vision calls for solutions that are tailored to the needs and resources of rural areas while reinforcing long-term strategies for sustainable growth; underlines in this regard the need to fully involve local and regional authorities, which are best placed to identify current challenges and needs at the regional and local levels; highlights the importance of maintaining a decentralised model for the programming and implementation of cohesion policy based on the principle of partnership and multi-level governance and a place-based bottom-up approach; calls, therefore, for the strong involvement of regional and local authorities to ensure more direct access for local and regional authorities to cohesion policy funds, reducing bureaucratic complexity and shortening disbursement times, through more streamlined procedures, intuitive digital platforms and increased technical support for local beneficiaries; proposes encouraging the use of pre-financing and advance payment schemes for small projects in rural areas;

    24. Stresses that centralisation may lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays in fund absorption, ultimately reducing the effectiveness of EU investments in rural development;

    25. Highlights that the management approach to rural areas’ development policies needs to be coordinated, integrated and multi-sectoral in its implementation and that reinforcing a multi-level approach in line with the subsidiarity principle is essential to ensure its success;

    26. Highlights that resilience is essential to enable authorities at local and regional levels to mitigate, adapt to and recover from sudden challenges, ensuring community well-being, security and long-term sustainability;

    27. Calls for an adequate share of cohesion policy funding to be allocated to the border regions and calls in this regard for the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) to be granted a higher degree of autonomy in selecting projects and using funds, in particular by designating EGTCs as managing authorities for Interreg programmes, strengthening their institutional and financial capacity; recommends furthermore that EGTCs be granted a more significant role in achieving policy objective 5, namely bringing Europe closer to its citizens;

    28. Underlines the need to strengthen democratic and political participation in rural areas by promoting active civic engagement and digital tools; calls on the Commission to support initiatives that foster local democratic processes to improve cohesion between urban and rural regions;

    29. Highlights the need for rural areas to be able to provide essential high-quality services of general interest to the public to improve their livelihood and to harness their strengths to achieve sustainable development, for which they should receive sufficient financial support; underlines, to that end, the need to provide equal access, in particular to vulnerable people and people with disabilities, to all healthcare services, transport and connectivity services, including innovative mobility solutions, specific plans for affordable housing, water services, education and training services, digital infrastructure, and other basic services such as postal and banking services, ensuring their accessibility and affordability in order to guarantee proper living conditions; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate access to funding and tailored support measures for social economy initiatives that address local needs and contribute to regional development and, at the same time, to reinforce the financial support offered to rural SMEs, in particular through easing access to financial resources, cooperatives and local value chains that foster economic diversification;

    30. Stresses the strategic importance of water resources for rural areas and highlights the need to provide sufficient resources, under the cohesion policy and in rural development programmes, for maintaining and upgrading the water network; recommends, in particular, the inclusion of measures to combat leakage, improve the efficiency of supply systems and promote the sustainable use of water resources in rural areas;

    31. Regards it as essential to place greater emphasis on preventive measures to enhance the resilience of Europe’s rural areas in the face of natural disasters; believes that an integrated approach to managing water resources is paramount in order to simultaneously prevent floods and tackle drought – two growing threats in many rural regions – within both agriculture and the food sector; acknowledges that depending on the context, building dams and reservoirs or upgrading existing facilities is a priority, while striking a balance between built infrastructure and relatively low cost soft measures, not least because they can be a clean source of energy; notes that although cohesion policy already supports initiatives in this area, additional projects and increased investment are needed, in line with national and regional risk management strategies, to ensure that rural areas are better prepared for, and able to withstand, climate-related extreme weather events;

    32. Stresses the growing threat of climate risks such as natural disasters, desertification and water scarcity for many rural areas in Europe, particularly in southern Europe and in the Mediterranean basin; calls on the Commission to promote forward looking adaptation strategies at national, regional and local levels, including water management, resilient infrastructure and disaster preparedness, and calls for investments in innovative water infrastructure, such as the reuse of treated wastewater and smart irrigation systems, and the construction of reservoirs for rainwater harvesting;

    33. Notes that rural areas suffer from limited access to essential healthcare services, with a shortage of facilities and medical personnel, and therefore calls for improved access to quality healthcare, including mental health services;

    34. Calls on the Member States and local authorities to safeguard essential services that are vital to the development of rural areas by refraining from imposing economic constraints on healthcare in rural areas, as this would lead to the closure, or a fall in the number of, first-aid facilities and basic hospital structures, which should be strengthened;

    35. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop a plan for mobile medical units and for telemedicine, the strengthening of medical services including medical spa services, community health nurses and digital health solutions and incentives for doctors working in rural and remote areas;

    36. Calls on the Commission to incorporate specific measures targeting areas identified as rural into its eHealth strategy, in order to provide local healthcare units with practical support for technological upgrades, and to promote the services such units offer; stresses that Member States should also be offered a screening programme targeting rural areas and that administrative support should also be put in place to assist with the drawing up of plans and prevention registers; calls on the Member States to take into account the particular characteristics of these areas and to encourage rural pharmacies to be set up, in order to specifically adapt pharmacy networks to a rural area, with coordination arrangements for medicines and medical devices supply, with the aim of streamlining and adapting the needs of healthcare units to the individual area; calls on the Member States to improve the provision of primary care and support services among these pharmacies termed ‘rural’;

    37. Highlights the key role that infrastructure development has to play in the economic and social growth of rural areas, given the need for transport systems, particularly public ones, with the capacity to improve connectivity and access to essential services, for energy networks, including renewables, and for suitable digital connectivity infrastructure; notes, in particular, that the quality of transport and digital connectivity should be improved so that people have easy access to labour, schools, hospitals, public services and job opportunities; underlines that road, rail and maritime transport links need to be developed or upgraded through EU co-funded programmes to reduce the isolation of rural areas, in particular from urban centres, narrowing the existing gap, and to facilitate sustainable mobility of people and goods; calls for a comprehensive strategy to improve mobility in rural areas, with a strong focus on sustainability, the expansion of charging infrastructure and the promotion of e-mobility; emphasises the need for targeted investments in public transport, shared mobility solutions and alternative transport models to ensure accessibility and connectivity for rural populations;

    38. Stresses that the digital divide between rural and urban areas remains significant, hindering equal opportunities for all residents; calls on the Commission and the Member States to accelerate investments in broadband connectivity, including 5G, better mobile coverage, high-speed internet networks, digital farming solutions and rural innovation hubs, ensuring that digital transformation benefits rural communities, while paying special attention to the regions less prepared for this transformation, including remote areas and outermost regions; stresses that these investments are crucial to enhancing productivity, supporting small farms’ entrepreneurship, facilitating remote working, accessing e-services and online teaching and ensuring that rural areas remain competitive in the digital age; stresses the need for digital literacy and vocational training initiatives to support the integration of digital technologies into the rural economy and to bridge the existing technological and economic divides;

    39. Stresses the importance and interconnectedness of military mobility, rural infrastructure development and regional security; underlines the overlap between the EU military mobility network and the Trans-European Transport Network;

    40. Calls for strategies to address vacant buildings and promote alternative housing concepts in rural areas, including affordable housing, renovation projects and intergenerational living; emphasises the need for incentives to repurpose empty properties, support community-driven housing initiatives and ensure sustainable, inclusive living spaces;

    41. Stresses the importance of promoting priority policies that support young people, as the main actors of the rural exodus, and calls on the Commission to ensure them an effective application of the ‘right to stay’ through targeted measures, designed to stem the demographic decline in rural areas and to encourage talented people to remain there; believes that individuals who wish to contribute to the development of their local communities should be provided with ample opportunities, and that it is therefore urgent to eliminate barriers and the significant disparities between young people in urban and rural areas in terms of access to high quality education, economic independence, social and political engagement, and intergenerational social interaction; calls for concrete measures and targeted funding programmes, including a brain drain action plan from the Commission, to support young people and young entrepreneurs, providing them with all the tools and resources they need to help them to access agricultural lands, jobs and business opportunities; notes that such measures should include improved access to public services, educational and cultural facilities, access to housing, low-interest loans and, with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity in fiscal matters, tax-related incentives to help young people build a stable future in line with their aspirations, without needing to abandon their place of origin, and creating incentives to settle down in or return to rural areas; considers it necessary, therefore, to promote measures to diversify the rural economy by harnessing local potential, including in areas outside agriculture and tourism, and to create quality jobs;

    42. Highlights the importance of boosting vocational education and training while also fostering youth-led initiatives and non-formal learning for young people to develop specific skills related to the economy of rural areas, as a tool for social cohesion and quality employment, with a view to combating depopulation in those areas;

    43. Highlights the key role of awareness raising and knowledge-sharing campaigns in advancing various education campaigns and programmes, and the importance of making them an integral part of school curricula; stresses the increasingly worrying data on early school leaving and to that end, calls on national and local authorities to reorganise their school systems to guarantee the right to education in their territories, bearing in mind the serious and objective difficulties they may face; calls on the Member States and local authorities, therefore, not to merge existing schools management structures in those areas;

    44. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide for new subsidised credit facilities that can support young entrepreneurs and women in their activities, including alternative forms of guarantees for access to credit; calls for financial support to empower young farmers, ensuring growth in rural economies;

    45. Welcomes the new EUR 3 billion loan financing package from the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group for agriculture, forestry and fisheries across Europe as a tangible initiative to close the funding gaps for SMEs in agriculture and the bio-economy and facilitate financing for young farmers and women; calls on the EIB Group to explore new forms of support to provide liquidity for actors along agricultural and rural value chains;

    46. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote local start-ups and incentive programmes for the return of young people and for the purchase and renovation of housing by young people in rural areas;

    47. Calls on the Commission to establish a European fund for youth entrepreneurship in rural areas, with a special focus on regions affected by high youth unemployment and brain drain; notes that this fund should support rural start-ups, innovative agriculture, sustainable tourism and digitalisation through dedicated financial instruments and tax incentives;

    48. Draws attention to the need for universal equal access to measures enabling everyone to develop the high-quality skills they need to achieve their professional goals, and to vocational and educational training; laments the fact that in rural areas, in many fields, the work of women is currently not rewarded with equal opportunities and conditions, as they often face extra challenges, including limited access to job opportunities, a lack of adequate measures to help them juggle work and family, and a shortage of childcare facilities; emphasises the need to foster an environment conducive to female employment, with support for all families, ensuring high quality early childhood education and care systems and parental support;

    49. Calls for increased support for women in rural areas, particularly through measures to improve access to employment, education, healthcare and social infrastructure, as well as protection from violence and violence prevention, to promote their economic and social participation; emphasises that targeted programmes should be created to support female entrepreneurs in rural regions in order to strengthen their economic independence;

    50. Stresses that support for women in rural areas is imperative for a variety of reasons, including promoting gender equality, fostering economic growth, advancing community development, reducing poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability; highlights that women play a multilevel role in rural development, as workers, farmers and business owners, and stresses that their importance in rural areas and local economies is often overlooked; stresses that special attention should be paid to women in rural areas when designing structural social support and regional development programmes; highlights that addressing these barriers is crucial for empowering women and unlocking their full potential in rural communities;

    51. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to boost awareness regarding existing and future EU funding possibilities for women entrepreneurs in rural areas and to make it easier for them to access financial support; encourages the Member States and regional and local authorities to make use of the existing EU structural and investment funds to promote women entrepreneurs;

    52. Calls for gender-equality employment policies and targeted measures to promote a better work-life balance in rural areas, including flexible working models, digital work opportunities, improved leisure and education offerings, and the promotion of community-based care and support structures for families;

    53. Urges the Commission to adopt measures to protect the family farming model that underpins the rural territory, is more environmentally friendly and guarantees food security in the EU; stresses the need for a EU system of incentives to limit the accumulation of agricultural land in private investment funds and the consequent increase in land prices; insists on the protection of small and medium-sized farms by strengthening the role of cooperatives and professional farmers in EU policies; furthermore, encourages the Member States to implement concrete measures to support these farms by simplifying access to credit, modernising rural infrastructure and giving impetus to agricultural cooperatives;

    54. Stresses the key role played by agriculture and the agri-food sector in food production, ensuring food security in the EU and job creation – a role worth championing since as it constitutes a mainstay of the local economy and is a key factor in ensuring sustainable land management, and also drives the growth and development of inland and rural areas, which often enjoy international recognition for their outstanding typical products; notes that it is necessary to help farmers innovate and diversify, while at the same time fostering farm competitiveness; believes that the transition to a more sustainable model requires a balanced approach, mindful of local specificities and the economic needs of rural communities, without imposing changes liable to hinder their long-term development; calls, in this regard, on the Commission and the Member States to take strong and targeted action by reducing excessive regulatory burdens and ensuring fair market conditions, to mitigate the decline in the number of farms and encourage generational renewal; calls for adequate support to promote food self-sufficiency and crop diversification; highlights in particular the specific structural challenges of the outermost regions and their rural areas;

    55. Urges the Commission and the Member States, in order to strengthen food security and ensure that European farmers do not face unfair competition from products that do not meet the same environmental, animal welfare and food security standards, to enforce strict equivalence of production standards for agricultural products imported into the EU and calls  on the Commission, in this regard, to ensure that trade agreements uphold European agricultural standards and ensure a level playing field for EU farmers;

    56. Acknowledges that the ambitious goals of the green transition entail opportunities as well as risks for EU agriculture; emphasises that the number of farms in the EU decreased between 2005 and 2020 by about 37 % and calls on the Commission and the Member States, in this regard, to take action to mitigate the decline in the number of farms and support their revenues and competitiveness, in order to stem the desertion of these areas and encourage generational renewal;

    57. Points to the need to simplify administrative procedures for accessing EU funds by reducing red tape for farmers and small rural businesses and improving coordination between the institutional levels involved in the management of funds in order to ensure that resources are provided more efficiently and in a more timely manner;

    58. Points also to the need to provide these areas, as well as businesses and farm and forest holders, with sufficient financial support, including support for the purchase and maintenance of equipment, with a view to increasing European competitiveness;

    59. Is fully aware that rural areas play a key role in the green and digital transitions; underlines that the transitions have to be implemented gradually, along the lines of achievable goals; calls in this regard for EU funding to be better linked with environmental sustainability and biodiversity protection;

    60. Highlights the need to support rural communities in European regions that have been most adversely affected by the trade in or export of Ukrainian agricultural products;

    61. Points to the importance of compensatory measures for farmers and rural businesses to ensure that the ecological transition is fair and practical and does not lead to new socio-economic disparities; highlight that for this transition to be successful, the full involvement and collaboration of all stakeholders, in particular farmers and foresters, will be key;

    62. Highlights that promoting agriculture is a necessary component of any strategy for rural development, but that on its own it is not sufficient, as not all people in rural areas are employed in the agricultural sector or live in agricultural structures;

    63. Recognises that tourism is frequently a major source of income for rural, mountainous, insular and outermost regions, as well as in the Mediterranean region, with the potential to encourage job creation and entrepreneurship and to draw in growing numbers of visitors curious to discover their nature, traditions and cultural heritage through the unique experiences on offer; believes, for that reason, that tourism should be supported through investment in the rural economy, in synergy with the agricultural, fishing, food and cultural sectors, and that the EU should promote the co-existence and further development of these sectors;

    64. Highlights that rural and agro-tourism can be a complementary activity to agriculture, offering opportunities for diversifying farm incomes and benefiting the development of rural areas, and that resources should therefore be allocated to the development of tourism and HoReCa activities;

    65. Underlines the need to promote rural tourism in a way that is sustainable; highlights the importance of optimising the economic benefits of tourism for rural areas, while minimising the potential negative impacts on local communities and ecosystems;

    66. Emphasises the importance of protecting and promoting linguistic minorities in the rural areas of the EU, recognising them as an integral part of Europe’s cultural heritage and as a driver of regional development; therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate cohesion policy resources to support projects for linguistic promotion, training, cultural tourism and local entrepreneurship connected to the linguistic and cultural traditions of the regions;

    67. Urges the Commission and the Member States to boost tourism in rural and depopulated areas or areas at risk of depopulation, by financing initiatives that enhance historic villages and traditional local products and establishing new green paths and other nature trails, as well as a label recognising outstanding environments in rural and nature tourism along similar lines to the ‘blue flag’ awarded to beaches;

    68. Notes that in some Member States, municipalities play a crucial role as drivers of regional economic development, benefiting from substantial tax revenues generated by their local economies; highlights that these revenues can motivate municipalities to invest EU cohesion funds in increasing their future tax base, promoting long-term local economic growth and securing long-term tax revenues; to this end, calls on the Commission, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity in fiscal matters, to initiate a dialogue on the potential benefits of sharing taxes on economic activities with municipalities;

    69. Insists that excessive bureaucracy should not prevent farmers from focusing on sustainable food production and rural economic development; calls on the Commission and the Member States to include a strong rural dimension in the future cohesion policy regulations and to promote better regulation as a matter of priority, in order to reduce administrative burdens and to take steps to ensure the competitiveness of rural businesses, particularly SMEs, cooperatives and citizen-led communities, and to promote easier and more efficient access to funds, cost reductions and simplified application and evaluation processes for EU funding, especially for small beneficiaries; reaffirms that optimising procedures, cutting red tape and enhancing transparency are vital to improving access to the available resources; calls on the Commission, therefore, to provide adequate advisory services and technical assistance to managing authorities, thereby also contributing to increased absorption rates;

    70. Calls for a more integrated approach between EU industrial and cohesion policies, ensuring that regional development strategies are aligned with industrial transition efforts, particularly in northern, sparsely populated areas;

    71. Emphasises the importance of SMEs in technological sectors for rural digitalisation and economic resilience; calls on the Commission to ensure that public measures support local businesses and foster proximity-based economies, avoiding criteria that may disadvantage smaller enterprises;

    72. Stresses the need for better alignment between existing territorial development instruments and Structural Funds, including initiatives such as Harnessing Talent and the Covenant of Mayors;

    73. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    June 5, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 102
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress