The Government is striving forward with Treaty negotiations at pace as the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill passes its first reading in Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “I am delighted to be able to move forward with this settlement just months after the Crown and Ngāti Hāua signed a Deed in Taumarunui. “This is testament to Ngāti Hāua’s negotiation team and the Government’s priority to make significant progress in the Treaty negotiations space. “It is an honour to welcome Ngāti Hāua to Parliament today. The Bill marks the beginning of the last stage of the iwi’s eight-year journey to settlement. “Today is about looking forward to the future, while acknowledging the past and the long and difficult journey it has taken to get here.” Key elements of the redress include:
Cultural redress including the return of 64 culturally significant sites like the land at the confluence of the Whanganui and Ongarue rivers (Ngā Huinga). The payment of $19 million in financial redress to enable the economic revitalisation of Ngāti Hāua. Statutory pardons for two Ngāti Hāua ancestors who were arrested and treated with exceptional harshness in the 1840s, one of whom was executed.
Ngāti Hāua is an iwi based in the central North Island, centred around Taumarunui. It is a population of approximately 2,500 people. A copy of the Deed of Settlement is available online at: Te Tari Whakatau – Ngāti Hāua.
Kia ora koutou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai, piki mai. Ki te mihi atu ahau, ki ngā mana whenua nei, tenei te mihi i kaikarakia ko Riki Minhinnick, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you to the Southern Initiative for hosting us in Manukau today. As many of you will know the Southern Initiative champions social and community innovation in south Auckland to drive real change for people in need. There are many parallels with the work the Social Investment Agency is doing, and I’m delighted to be making today’s announcement here. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Social Investment Board members Dr Graham Scott, David Woods and Mike Williams. Last year I told a story about Jack. It was not your classic Hollywood underdog story – maybe something closer to home, gritty and independent and without a cosy fairytale ending. When we left Jack he was 22-years-old, had been arrested for assault and was heading to prison. His pregnant partner Danni and four-year-old son were living in a damp, overcrowded rental in South Auckland. He’d had frequent and extensive interactions with government services, which had not been successful in providing the intervention or support he needed to break the cycle. Over successive decades and successive governments it’s become increasingly clear that despite billions of dollars being spent major barriers in the system are holding back change. The sad reality is that despite many good intentions, outcomes haven’t improved for many of our most vulnerable – people like Jack and his partner Danni – whose complex needs span multiple government portfolios. Since we last talked about Jack, the Social Investment Agency has been developing a new social investment approach for better delivery of social services. The Government currently funds a huge number of non-government organisations to deliver social services to improve the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders. But many of these providers are operating with one arm tied behind their backs because of a traditionally fragmented, short-term approach to contracting. I’ve been told of providers juggling over 100 contracts with up to 17 different agencies – many of them renewed annually. That creates uncertainty, pushes up costs, and drives short-term thinking. Contracts are often highly prescriptive, focused on easily measured inputs and outputs, rather than the outcomes that actually matter to peoples’ lives. Social providers report spending up to a third of their time on auditing and reporting, rather than working with the people they are supposed to be helping. Those delivering services that span multiple government agencies often find their overall impact goes unrecognised. Each agency sees only the part that relates to its silo, missing the broader value of the work. As a result, effective, integrated community support is undervalued, and the people who need it most, like Jack and Danni, miss out. The people in this room know that New Zealanders like Jack and Danni require intensive and bespoke services, which are most effective when provided in their communities, not one-size-fits-all programmes driven by the organisational needs of Wellington bureaucracies. Social investment flips the model. It puts people – like Jack and his whānau – at the centre of social service delivery. It means being clear about the outcomes we’re purchasing, who we’re targeting, and the data and evidence we’ll use to determine what is and isn’t working – and what we should, and shouldn’t, be funding. And it means partnering better with the organisations like many of you here today, who are best placed to help the likes of Jack, Danni and Jack Jr thrive – as long as Government will let you. SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND To drive this change, today I am announcing that Budget 2025 allocates $275 million over the next four years to Vote Social Investment. The centrepiece of the Social Investment Budget is a new $190 million Social Investment Fund, designed to change lives and tackle the very problems we’ve talked about – short-term contracts, siloed funding, and a lack of focus on outcomes. In addition, the Social Investment Agency has been allocated:
$20 million for initiatives that strengthen parenting in the first 2000 days of a child’s life, reducing harm and setting children up for better long-term outcomes; and $25 million for initiatives to help prevent children and vulnerable adults from entering state care, as part of the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care.
The hero of today’s announcement is the Social Investment Fund. It will invest in services that deliver measurable improvements in the lives of those who need our help, guided by data and evidence. It will support both new approaches and strengthen existing services that work. Each investment will have robust evaluation built in from the start, so Government can track the Fund’s impact and invest taxpayer money with confidence. The Fund is expected to invest in at least 20 initiatives over the next year. Today, I’m pleased to announce the first three initiatives which demonstrate how the Fund will work in practice: The first is an Autism NZ initiative to each year help 50 families of young children who are autistic or showing signs of autism by intervening early so that families, teachers, and other professionals, are better able to help these young people to thrive at school. The second extends to another 80 families an evidence-based Emerge Aotearoa programme that has been proven to reduce youth offending and truancy. The third is He Piringa Whare, an expanded programme delivered by Te Tihi o Ruahine, an alliance of nine hapū, iwi, Māori organisations, partners and providers with a track record of using data and evidence to shape its services. The He Piringa Whare programme will support over 130 families at a time to live in warm, dry homes, engage them in education, training and employment and support whānau to live in relationships that are free from violence. All three of these initiatives have established expertise, but all have historically struggled to secure funding for their services because the outcomes span multiple government agencies. My goal is that the Government’s new approach will help us prove the return on these investments so we can scale them up over time. But what might the work of the Social Investment Fund actually mean for someone like Jack and Danni? It could mean a coordinated response from Te Tihi: support for Jack as he reintegrates into his community after prison, parenting programmes for him and Danni, smoking interventions while Danni is pregnant; tailored housing support; and education and health services wrapped around their young family. Not a patchwork of agencies working in silos, and providers cobbling together piecemeal funding and contracts. It means a dedicated support worker who knows their whānau and a stable home for Jack, Danni, and their children. It means early identification of autism for Jack Jr, when his Plunket nurse sees early signs of autism and refers him to Autism NZ. Autism NZ, in turn, could provide Jack’s whānau with tools to better understand his needs and get him ready for school, provide access to the learning support his father would likely have benefited from and didn’t get, and on-going support for the whole family, setting the foundation for long-term success. We’re not talking about waving a magic wand, applying a quick fix or simply servicing misery. This is about investing in smart, targeted early interventions that not only make a difference in the lives of Jack and his whānau, but mean the Government reduces the money it might otherwise have spent on treating the symptoms rather than the cause of dysfunction – be it at the crisis end of the justice or health systems or government provided income support. Maybe if Jack had received something like Emerge’s services as a youth, things wouldn’t have progressed to where he was heading to prison. Its Multi-Systemic Therapy programme has seen at least 80 per cent of the young people it works with engaged in education or work with no new arrests. The Social Investment Fund is starting small but I see potential for it to achieve significant scale over time. Government agencies currently spend about $7 billion each year buying social services designed to improved lives from non-government agencies. In the years ahead we want to see more of this funding and more of these contracts transferred into the Social Investment Fund. We will work with providers and communities who want to consolidate their multiple government contracts into one genuinely outcomes-based contract. The Government is also open to the pooling of social sector funding from multiple government budgets into a single fund under local decision-making. We often hear local leaders saying that they could do a better job of investing in outcomes than multiple government agencies and we want to hear from you how we can make that work. We’re also creating the opportunity for future co-investment opportunities with the philanthropic and private sector. The Social Investment Fund is a rejection of the failed approaches of the past. It’s being set up as a totally new way of working with you, the people who know Jack and Danni best and who are best placed to impact their lives for the better. I see it as a force for enduring change that will survive changes of Government. Because Jack doesn’t care that the providers that have been in contact with him have been doing it hard. He doesn’t know that they scrounge and scrape to get by, managing dozens of contracts with agencies, getting endlessly audited and reporting back on every minor detail. A central fund with a clear mandate gives us the best chance of working with those outside of government to improve the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. SOCIAL INVESTMENT ACROSS GOVERNMENT The Social Investment Agency also has a wider leadership role. It’s purpose is to demonstrate and accelerate change that ensures all government agencies invest more effectively to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. It is building tools, infrastructure and methods that both government agencies and the wider social sector can use. That includes better ways to track progress, measure outcomes and understand what’s actually working. This will also improve the way the Government delivers mainstream social services in health, education and other areas. For example, the Government invests billions of dollars in education every year, but the returns – in terms of literacy, school attendance, and long-term outcomes – are not where they should be. We know that many kids with additional needs struggle throughout their time at school. We also know that if we intervened earlier to help them they’d be capable of achieving a whole lot more. This is a prime area for applying a social investment approach – targeting resources earlier, backing what works, and ensuring that spending leads to better outcomes later in life. If we get it right early, we reduce the need for far more expensive interventions down the track. You can expect to see that thinking heroed in this year’s Education Budget. And I’m looking forward to saying more about it next week. It’s not just about education. We want every government agency to be asking: how can we invest smarter? How do we make sure out spending is improving lives, not just funding activity? That means being open to innovation – and by that I mean being open to, and enabling, new approaches to existing challenges. We need to recognise that the overly risk-averse approach traditionally taken by government agencies has not shifted the dial – especially for families with high and complex needs or intergenerational issues. We also know that innovation is happening outside of the Wellington system – in spite of the barriers government can put up. We want to back communities and non-government organisations who show insight in their use of data and evidence, who are willing to innovate and to clearly evaluate what’s working and what’s not working. It’s about constant improvement. We want to see data used to constantly measure the progress being made and to identify how we can do better together. Data, evidence and infrastructure form the backbone of the social investment approach. Together, they provide for safe and secure data sharing that enables the Government to understand where it should focus its efforts. They also enable providers to understand their impact and what else they need to do. A key goal for the Social Investment Agency is to reduce the amount of reporting and data being sought by government agencies from providers. We recognise that the amount of meaningless information presently sought by agencies can be burdensome for NGOs and often adds very little value relative to the work required to provide it. Social investment contracts will be designed to reduce the amount of data being required while improving our insights about what actually has impact. SPEND TO SAVE Social investment not only improves lives, it also frees up resources for investment in other priorities. When we invest even relatively small amounts in the right places, that can lead to bigger and better impacts – both socially and fiscally. Our Government is willing to make investments up front to drive durable savings down the line. We’re starting to shift how this logic is reflected in the Budget process — recognising that not all spending is a cost. Some spending is investment that provides a social and financial return over the longer-term. And when it’s well-targeted and backed by evidence, it pays for itself many times over. We’ve already put this theory into action. In December 2023, over 3,100 households were living in emergency housing motels – often for months at a time and at one point costing the country around a million dollars a day. Some of these motels became long-term living arrangements for families with young children. It was one of the most visible policy failures in recent memory – unsustainable, expensive, and harmful to the people stuck in the system. So we changed approach. We made families with children a priority for social housing. We made an upfront investment of $80m and we worked across agencies to support people into stable housing – including private rentals. The result was that by December 2024, the number of households in emergency housing motels dropped to 591 – a 75% reduction in just 12 months, and five years ahead of the target we set on coming into office. This is not just a huge social success for the thousands of families now raising their children in proper homes. It’s also a huge success for the taxpayer – with savings of nearly $1.35 billion forecast over the next four years. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been spent on motel bills instead being reinvested back into social services, education, and health. Budget 2025 builds on this approach. It includes further initiatives where smart, early investment is expected to generate real savings, including in areas like employment, where helping someone into work today not only improves that person’s life prospects, but lead to savings for the taxpayer. This is how our Government will build a social system that’s more effective, more sustainable, and that replaces heavy-handed bureaucracy with real results. CONCLUSION Fast forward ten years. On this trajectory, we expect to see Jack, Danni and their children thriving, living in a home full of hope, not hardship. Jack and Danni have been able to give their children stability they themselves haven’t had. With parenting programmes and community support, they have a confidence and a sense of belonging brought about by interventions that were targeted, holistic, and locally-driven. We’re looking forward to seeing communities drive the change we want to see. We know that real change will come from the leadership of people like those in this room, not policy advisors on the Terrace. Today’s Budget announcement is a big step forward. Over the next few years, I expect to see significant amounts of funding transferred to the Social Investment Fund, which will enable providers to work holistically and flexibly to improve people’s lives. Our Government believes in the potential of every person growing up in this country. Because every New Zealander deserves the chance to live in a home full of hope, not hardship. That’s the vision for social investment and I’m looking forward to working with you to make it happen.
Vulnerable families and young New Zealanders will benefit from a new approach to the delivery of social services with a $275 million boost to Vote Social Investment, Social Investment Minister Nicola Willis says. “The centrepiece of the Social Investment Budget package is a new $190 million Social Investment Fund that will make carefully targeted investments designed to improve the lives of New Zealanders in need. “The Fund is about more than new money. It’s about Government investing earlier, smarter and with much more transparent measurement of the impact interventions are having for the people they are designed to help. “The Fund will invest in services that deliver measurable improvements in people’s lives, guided by data and evidence. It will support both new approaches and strengthen existing services that work, to improve the Government’s return on investment and change vulnerable people’s lives for the better. “Over the next year the fund will invest in at least 20 initiatives, using a completely different contracting approach than that traditionally used by Government agencies. “Each initiative will have robust evaluation built into it from the start, so that its impact can be tracked. “The Government is already investing around $7 billion each year buying social services from non-government agencies. Despite this, we know too many New Zealanders remain trapped in cycles of inter-generational dysfunction. Communities, NGOS and iwi all tell us they could have much more impact in people’s lives if the Government was smarter about the way it selects, contracts, and monitors the social services we fund. “The Fund will start relatively small and grow over time as it proves itself, setting up the infrastructure for large scale delivery of integrated contracts with support from the social sector. “The Fund will be the catalyst for improving the way Government works with communities to drive social impact. “Over the next two to three years, I expect to see significant amounts of funding transferred from current social services to the Social Investment Fund as communities and providers develop new approaches to working with government.” As part of the $275 million, the Budget also provides:
$20 million for programmes that strengthen parenting in the first 2000 days of a child’s life, reducing harm and setting children up for better long-term outcomes; and $25 million to help prevent children and vulnerable adults from entering state care, as part of the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.
Note for editors The first three initiatives funded by the Social Investment Fund are:
Autism New Zealand’s early screening and intervention programme that provides services and support for family/whānau, caregivers and professionals. Ka Puta Ka Ora Emerge Aotearoa’s evidence-based approach to tackling youth offending and truancy that will help at least 80 families each year to address youth offending and truancy; and The He Piringa Whare programme with Te Tihi o Ruahine an alliance of nine hapū, iwi, Māori organisations and providers that will support 130 families at a time with a wraparound service that delivers stable housing, education, training and employment, and other services
Police accept the findings by the Independent Police Conduct Authority following a disorder by a group of young men in Beachlands.
On 11 November 2023, Police were called following a complaint of a group of intoxicated men behaving in a disruptive manner, which led to officers failing to follow the correct process for issuing formal warnings.
Three officers responded, with nine others arriving to assist during the hour long incident.
The group was described as being extremely intoxicated, fighting with each other, and being belligerent towards Police.
After using a range of tactics in an attempt to control and defuse the situation Police arrested five young men.
One was charged with fighting in a public place and assaulting Police, and the other four were given formal warnings.
One of the officers allegedly kicked one of the young men involved, however there was insufficient evidence to substantiate this allegation.
That officer has since resigned from Police.
We note that the IPCA found Police largely acted within their powers when dealing with group.
Counties Manukau District Commander Superintendent Shanan Gray says Police agree the officers failed to follow the correct process when issuing the formal warnings.
“Work has been done since this incident to communicate with officers the importance of following our formal warning process requirements.”
Filled with thoughtful analysis, deep reflection, and fascinating historical detail, Discriminations argues the differences between leftist moderates and “woke activists” centrally concern means rather than ends.
Review: Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars (Oneworld Publications)
The book’s core contribution lies in Grayling’s searching examination of “othering”. This allows him to explain the core ethical concern about racism and sexism while simultaneously providing a principled basis to resist the more intolerant strategies that might be used in the struggle against such evils.
Defining ‘woke’
“Woke” and “wokist” now have pejorative implications and are terms used mainly by critics of progressive views. Grayling defines “wokism” in terms of the passionate advocacy of things like:
• Critical Race Theory in history classes
• Campaigning for same-sex marriage
• Educating about diversity in sexuality
• Supporting medical gender transition
• Advocating changes in language use, such as with non-gendered pronouns
• Encouraging Me Too avowals.
A significant number of identity politics activists, he adds, “promote no-platforming and cancellation as weapons in the struggle”.
This last point is critical in the way Grayling pictures the differences between moderate leftists like himself and “woke activists”. After all, the bulleted list above – apart perhaps from the reference to Critical Race Theory – includes many concerns broadly shared across the political left.
For Grayling, the differences between moderates and activists are mainly ones of strategies they employ to achieve their shared social justice goals.
Through their justifiable anger at systemic injustice, he argues, some “woke activists” have been drawn into employing weapons like no-platforming and cancellation. These tactics can sometimes be morally mistaken, especially when driven by online mobs.
Grayling worries that the use of these practices can “other” their targets, without any attempt at due process and constraints of proportionality.
A contrasting view?
Discriminations stands in stark contrast to another recent work on wokism: Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap. Like Grayling, Mounk is a moderate leftist. Like Grayling, he is critical of woke activism. But that is where their similarities end.
For Mounk, wokism is not a continuation of traditional leftist civil rights struggles but a sharp deviation from them. On this view, wokism (which Mounk calls “the identity synthesis”) differs from liberal progressivism not merely in means but fundamentally in ends.
Mounk sees wokism as committed to three foundational claims: the world must be understood through the prism of identities like sex, race and gender; supposedly universal rules merely serve to obscure how privileged groups dominate marginalised groups; and a just society requires norms and laws that explicitly treat (and require citizens to treat) different identity groups differently.
None of these are claims about means; they concern fundamental values and goals. For Mounk, woke intolerance – in the form of cancellation and no-platforming – is a feature, not a bug. In contrast, Grayling sees online cancellations (when they go wrong) as a betrayal of the traditional leftist values he shares with the woke activists.
Cancelling
Grayling understands cancelling as efforts to “deprive opponents not only of a platform to state their views, but to deprive the persons and groups themselves of a presence.” This can include social ostracism and getting people fired.
Discriminations contains no detailed discussions of contemporary cases of cancellation and their impacts. This is deliberate. Grayling worries that discussing current cases might invite an automatic identification with the cancelled target. Alternatively, it might counter-productively draw attention to victims who have already been excessively targeted.
Granting these points, the absence of any case studies carries costs. For one thing, it’s never shown in the book that these objectionable practices are widespread enough to warrant a movement against them.
Equally, there is no appeal to the reader’s sympathies by examining cases of cancellation through social media pile-ons and the human costs involved. Unless the reader already believes these practices to be widespread and harmful, they are unlikely to see what all the fuss is about.
Without examination of actual cases, it also can be hard to know exactly what Grayling is recommending. Grayling believes cancelling is often justified. However, he wants to make clear the serious problems it creates in the cases where it is not justified.
The problem is that different readers, interpreting some of his terms differently, might be led to see an act of cancellation as justified accountability where another reader would see objectionable mob justice.
‘Othering’
Grayling defines “othering” as
the practice of treating individuals and groups, typically on the basis of stereotyping and prejudice, as a ground for discriminating against them; and discrimination involves exclusion.
Othering occurs any time one group of people decides they are different to another group (which they see as the “other”), thus treating that group in a morally different and worse way.
Racism and sexism are examples of othering and “exclusion”. Grayling argues the goal of social justice is necessarily opposed to all such othering, especially if the exclusion is done without proportionality and safeguards, like due process. (Grayling allows that criminal punishment can be a type of justified othering.)
Crucially, Grayling argues that acts of cancellation and no-platforming are instances of othering. These practices explicitly involve attempted punishment, shaming and ostracism and often occur without due process.
Suppose you are a progressive activist concerned about the injustices of systemic racism and sexism. You might have strategic reasons that constrain the methods you use in fighting those injustices. However, your concerns with racism and sexism will generally not themselves restrain the methods you use.
But suppose now you accept Grayling’s argument that the root social justice concern is not with racism or sexism specifically, but rather with the more fundamental injustices of othering and exclusion. Because cancelling and no-platforming are themselves instances of such things, you now have a deeply held reason not to cancel others (except perhaps in the most compelling cases). You do not want to become the very thing you are fighting against.
Should we accept Grayling’s argument? There are some worries his notions of othering and exclusion are over-broad, given they capture commonplace practices like national borders and criminal justice punishments.
Overall though, Grayling shows through his historical discussions that political othering for ideological or doctrinal reasons has caused enormous injustices and even horrifying slaughters.
It turns out that political and ideological intolerance – Grayling recounts religious massacres and China’s Cultural Revolution – has a history every bit as awful as racially motivated massacres like the Holocaust. As he sombrely concludes: “tragedy attends entrenched positions that make mutual comprehension impossible”.
Grayling stresses it is right to feel anger at the world’s injustices. But a wariness of being drawn into othering should incline us towards what he terms “Aristotle’s Principle”: to be “angry with the right person, in the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose”.
Rights versus interests
Grayling adopts a human-rights-based approach as his moral compass, seeing it as a system that can transcend different cultures and parochial outlooks. He endorses the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – importantly including the right to free speech.
Cancelling can impinge on people’s free speech rights. As well as being wrong in itself, Grayling emphasises it’s also a strategic mistake. Activism itself requires free speech and it is unwise to “gift the high moral ground on free speech” to one’s political opponents. (That said, the political right in the United States is currently showing itself to be no friend of free speech either.)
Grayling distinguishes rights and interests. He argues, “no exercise of any right can deny the fundamental rights of others.” Too often, he insists, figures on both sides of politics interpret their opponents as violating their rights when the opponents are just impacting on their interests.
Grayling is surely correct that all sides of politics could benefit from seriously thinking through the differences between rights and interests. Setting back someone’s interests is not the same as violating their rights. Interests are inevitably in conflict and always require negotiation and compromise.
Still, there remains something of an elephant in the room. What if an opponent’s words or actions don’t violate anyone’s rights, but nevertheless plausibly contribute to a world where such violations are more likely?
Arguably, the problem of political intolerance isn’t driven by a conflation of rights with interests, but instead the ease with which any attack on a group’s interests can be represented as an indirect attack on their rights.
Does Grayling get ‘woke’ right?
It is a hard task to define an amorphous, contested and evolving concept like “wokism”. Grayling’s definition seems to map reasonably onto the original idea of being “woke to” (that is, newly aware of) structural racism and other inequities.
But as Grayling himself observes, “woke” is now more commonly used as a pejorative term. The linguist John McWhorter argues the term has evolved from describing those with a leftist political awareness to referring to “those who believe anyone who lacks that enlightenment should be punished, shunned or ridiculed.”
This is very different from Grayling’s understanding of the term. Most of the attributes Grayling ascribes to “the woke” are standard leftist positions. Worryingly, this sometimes seems to prevent him from engaging seriously with what many of the “woke” actually say and believe.
For example, Grayling reflects on those who say that wokist social justice has been strongly influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism includes the denial of things like “objective truth” and “factual knowledge” on the basis that these are constructs of power and discourse.
But Grayling finds this confusing. After all, postmodernism seems to undercut the objective values of equality and social justice. He concludes:
What this suggests is that those who begin with the postmodern analysis of objectivity and knowledge are not actually saying that there are no such things, but that how they have been constituted in the past should be replaced by new and better conceptions of them.
This is simply not what the postmodernists are saying. The worry here is that Grayling takes it upon himself to stipulate what another school of thought is “actually” saying, rather than listening carefully to their ideas and arguments, and being open to the possibility that these may differ profoundly from his own.
Given the book aims to persuade the woke activists he thinks are going too far in cancelling others, the possibility Grayling is misreading their actual position is a concerning one.
Throughout, he appeals to the importance of democracy, free speech, human rights, the rule of law and due process, and the Enlightenment. He argues from what he sees as empirical evidence and “common knowledge”. But all these notions are wide open for criticism (from the woke perspective) that they are inventions of racist, patriarchal, and colonialist systems of oppression.
As such, Grayling’s arguments may fall flat for the very group he is trying to persuade because he does not take their beliefs seriously enough to engage directly and critically with them.
So who is right? Is Grayling correct that woke activists are just like him, except they have been led by their shared passions for social justice to indulge in often counter-productive and mistaken strategies of cancellation? Or is Yascha Mounk correct? Is wokism a profound departure from traditional leftist social justice goals?
Perhaps time will tell.
Hugh Breakey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, May 14 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Wednesday held separate meetings with the foreign ministers of Honduras Eduardo Enrique Reyna, Bolivia Celinda Sosa Lunda and Mexico Juan Ramon de la Fuente.
The above-mentioned senior diplomats arrived in China to attend the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the China-CELAC Forum (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).
During the meeting with E.E. Reyna, Wang Yi, also a member of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee, said China highly appreciates Honduras’ firm commitment to the one-China principle and supports the country in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence and national dignity.
As Wang Yi emphasized, China is willing to share its experience in public administration with Honduras, help the country choose a development path that suits national conditions and is supported by the people, and will continue to assist Honduras within its capabilities in improving the well-being of its people and building up its potential.
The Honduran Foreign Minister, for his part, pointed out that the Latin American and Caribbean countries (LAC) are deeply encouraged by the important cooperation initiatives put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping. He noted that Honduras will firmly adhere to the one-China principle and translate the important agreements reached by the two heads of state into new practical results.
During the meeting with S. Sosa Lunda, the head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointed out that China highly appreciates Bolivia’s resolute commitment to defending national dignity, legitimate rights and interests without fear of external interference.
Wang Yi congratulated Bolivia on joining BRICS as a partner country and said that China hopes to expand communication and cooperation with the Bolivian side within the framework of multilateral mechanisms. The Chinese diplomat also called on both sides to further advance the high-quality joint construction of the Belt and Road.
S. Sosa Lunda, for her part, stressed that Bolivia is a strong defender of multilateralism and the right to national self-determination, attaches great importance to cooperation within the BRICS framework and wishes to use this platform to strengthen cohesion and mutual assistance among the countries of the Global South. She also emphasized that the commitment to the one-China principle is an unshakable position of Bolivia.
During his meeting with J.R. de la Fuente, Wang Yi said that China places relations with Mexico at the center of its diplomacy with LAC countries. He noted that, guided by the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, China is willing to share with Mexico its experience in comprehensively promoting Chinese-style modernization and the opportunities offered by the Chinese mega-market.
China welcomes more high-quality products from Mexico to enter its market and will encourage Chinese enterprises to invest and do business in Mexico, the Chinese foreign minister added.
J. R. de la Fuente, in turn, pointed out that Mexico firmly adheres to sovereignty and independence and will continue to strictly adhere to the one-China principle. According to him, Mexico expects to strengthen cooperation between the two countries in areas such as connectivity, science and technology, agriculture, tourism and direct flights, and continuously enrich the content of Mexico-China relations. –0–
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Moscow, May 14 /Xinhua/ — Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved the composition of the Russian delegation for talks with Ukraine. This was reported on the Kremlin website on Wednesday.
“To approve the following composition of the delegation of the Russian Federation for negotiations with Ukraine: Vladimir Medinsky – Aide to the President of the Russian Federation /head of the delegation/, Mikhail Galuzin – Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation /member of the delegation/, Igor Kostyukov – Chief of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation /member of the delegation/, Alexander Fomin – Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation /member of the delegation/,” reads the order signed by V. Putin “On the composition of the delegation of the Russian Federation for negotiations with Ukraine.”
The composition of experts has also been approved; it includes: First Deputy Chief of Information of the Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Alexander Zorin, Deputy Chief of the Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation for State Policy in the Humanitarian Sphere Elena Podobreevskaya, Director of the Second Department of the CIS Countries of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alexei Polishchuk and Deputy Chief of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Defense Viktor Shevtsov.
As reported, this order comes into force on the day of its signing. –0–
SACRAMENTO, CA (May 14, 2025) –In response to the recently released May revise of the California state budget, which revealed a projected $12 billion deficit, Benjamin Smith, Greenpeace USA Senior Strategic Partnerships Advisor, said: “Today’s news of the huge budget deficit in the May revise shows that California is sinking deeper into an affordability crisis. That’s why it’s crucial California legislators pass pieces of legislation like the Climate Superfund Act. Our investments in the future shouldn’t have to come from taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet.
“It’s time for the biggest polluters who created this toxic mess and the subsequent escalating, expensive climate disasters to pay their fair share. This is a common sense policy that is urgently needed to protect our public sector workers, critical social programs, and both state and local budgets.
“We can’t continue draining the coffers of services that Californians need, especially when there’s money available from some of the wealthiest corporations in history who have been making record profits. To take the words right out of President Trump’s mouth: instead of 30 yachts this year, the corporate CEOs making millions could do just fine with two.”
Greenpeace USA is part of a global network of independent campaigning organizations that use peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace USA is committed to transforming the country’s unjust social, environmental, and economic systems from the ground up to address the climate crisis, advance racial justice, and build an economy that puts people first. Learn more at www.greenpeace.org/usa.
OTTAWA, May 14, 2025 – I would like to congratulate the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, on his added responsibilities in Cabinet.
I look forward to working with Mr. Champagne to improve services at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA has the dual responsibility of administering tax legislation and distributing benefit payments to those who need them most. I trust that he will give both aspects of this role the attention they require.
Mr. Champagne brings a wealth of experience. He has held a variety of ministerial portfolios, from Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to Minister of Foreign Affairs to Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I am sure that his variety of expertise will be an important asset in his dual role as Minister of Finance and National Revenue.
As well, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Honourable Wayne Long, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions). He brings an interesting perspective acquired through his active engagement with numerous parliamentary committees, notably the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I am therefore confident he will be proactive in making sure the CRA pursue its dual role, especially for the most vulnerable among us.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Honourable Élisabeth Brière. Although I was her special advisor for only a short period of time, it was a pleasure working with her to improve the CRA’s services.
During her time as Minister, our Office released two systemic examination reports—Timing Is Everything, about how the CRA administers the Canada child benefit, and Unintended Consequences, about the CRA’s administration of the bare trust filing requirements. Between these two reports, we made a total of 16 recommendations. I was pleased to see that she provided thoughtful responses for how the CRA could improve the areas we identified. I wish her the best in her work as a member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.
I am looking forward to working with both the Minister and the Secretary of State in implementing the aforementioned recommendations made in our last two systemic reports.
Mr. François Boileau, Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson
Background information
The Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson works independently from the CRA. Canadians can submit complaints to the Office if they feel they are not receiving the appropriate service from the CRA. Our main objective is to improve the service the CRA provides to taxpayers and benefit recipients by reviewing individual service complaints and service issues that affect more than one person or a segment of the population.
The Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson assists, advises and informs the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about matters relating to services provided by the CRA. The Ombudsperson ensures, in particular, that the CRA respects eight of the service rights outlined in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Albertans deserve to have access to a fair, accessible and transparent justice system. To increase capacity in the courts and improve access to justice for those involved in civil, criminal and family matters, Alberta’s government has made five new judicial appointments to the Alberta Court of Justice.
“Continuing to fill judicial appointments directly strengthens the capacity of our courts, helping ensure Albertans have timely access to justice. Those newly appointed will serve Albertans well in their respective divisions and I congratulate them on their new roles.”
Alberta’s government has appointed the following individuals to the Alberta Court of Justice:
Tracey Bailey, KC, Edmonton Family and Youth Division, effective June 23.
Sheri Epp, Calgary Criminal Division and Calgary Region, effective June 2.
Karen McGowan, Edmonton Family and Youth Division, effective June 2.
Alicia Wendel, Edmonton Region, effective June 2.
Colin Wetter, part-time justice of the peace in Edmonton, effective May 14.
“The Alberta Court of Justice is pleased to welcome and congratulate these new appointments. Access to justice is a fundamental value of our society, ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to be heard, receive fair treatment, and obtain timely, meaningful resolution to their legal challenges. I am confident that their backgrounds and experience will serve Albertans well in achieving these goals.”
Since June 2023, Alberta’s government has made 30 judicial appointments.
Tracey M. Bailey, KC, received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1991. She started her career as an articling student, continuing as a lawyer at Milner Fenerty. Following academia, she practiced law at Alberta’s Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General before returning to private practice in 2020 as associate counsel at Miller Thomson, LLP, where Ms. Bailey was made partner in 2025.
Sheri Epp received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1997. She began her career as an articling student, and then as a litigation associate at Code Hunter Wittmann/Gowlings. She then gained litigation experience at Code Hunter LLP, Scott Hall LLP, McCarthy Tetrault LLP, and Talisman Energy Inc. Most recently, Ms. Epp was senior counsel, then became assistant vice-president and associate chief counsel of Individual Insurance and Affinity at Manulife.
Karen McGowan received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1998. Her focus has always been criminal law, beginning as an articling student at Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham. Since being called to the bar in 1999, she has practiced law for Legal Aid Alberta in the Youth Criminal Defence Office, then as a senior advisory counsel, and finally, in the Criminal Trial Group.
Alicia Wendel received her bachelor of laws degree from Dalhousie University in 1999. She started her career as an articling student at McAllister and Sinclair, then as a barrister at Fix and Smith. From 2001 to present, she has been a Crown prosecutor in rural jurisdictions, practicing in regional courts with the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service. Currently, Ms. Wendel is a member of the Alberta Justice Restorative Justice Working Group, the Alberta Justice Sexual Violence Working Group, and the Gladue Systemic Change Project Committee.
Colin Wetter received his bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1986. He began his career as an articling student at Howard Mackie in Calgary, then practiced law in the private sector until 1992. He then joined the federal Department of Justice as legal counsel, and –with ever-increasing roles of responsibility – in 2012 became regional director of the Aboriginal Law Services Section (Alberta). Mr. Wetter was regional director of the Tax Law Services Section (Prairie Region) from 2019 to 2022.
Quick facts
Lawyers with at least 10 years at the bar can apply to become a justice with the Alberta Court of Justice.
Lawyers with at least five years at the bar can apply to become a justice of the peace. Justice of the peace appointments are for 10 years.
Applications are reviewed by the Alberta Judicial Council and Alberta Judicial Nominating Committee, and then recommended to the minister of justice and cabinet for appointment.
Related information
Alberta’s government is actively recruiting justices and justices of the peace and encourages qualified lawyers to apply. Qualified lawyers who wish to be considered for appointment can access the application form online.
Related news
Ensuring access to justice for Albertans (May 7, 2025)
Judicial appointments increase Albertans access to justice (April 9, 2025)
Premier David Eby is leading a trade mission to Asia with business leaders and key government officials to strengthen partnerships, increase investment, diversify trade and create good jobs for British Columbians.
“Our largest trading partner has become increasingly unreliable, so now is the time to expand international markets for B.C. goods and develop deeper bonds with other countries,” Premier Eby said. “This trade mission is about showcasing all that B.C. has to offer, deepening our relationship with major customers, supporting good jobs here at home and building our province’s position as the economic engine of a stronger and more independent Canada.”
The trade mission is from June 1 until June 10, and includes: Tokyo and Osaka, Japan; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and Seoul, South Korea. Premier Eby will be accompanied by Lana Popham, Minister of Agriculture and Food, and Paul Choi, parliamentary secretary for Asia-Pacific trade, along with representatives from B.C. businesses and research universities.
“Farmers and food processers run an economic engine for the province, creating more than 40,000 jobs and nearly $6 billion in export sales every year,” Popham said. “I am excited to showcase the best of what B.C. has to offer on an international stage while opening up new opportunities for trade, growth and innovation.”
The team will be promoting B.C.’s strengths and seeking to build relationships that will support new trade and investment in key sectors, including surging demand in Asia for clean energy, B.C. wood and forestry products, technology, LNG and critical minerals, and agricultural products such as halal foods and seafood.
This mission builds on B.C.’s trade diversification strategy and is a followup to the Premier’s trade mission to the region in 2023. Over the 10-day trip, the Premier, minister and team will be meeting with government officials, business leaders and investors to discuss trade and partnership opportunities, as well as shared priorities in key sectors.
Itinerary:
June 1-5: Tokyo and Osaka, Japan June 5-7: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia June 8-10: Seoul, South Korea
Quick Facts:
The Indo-Pacific is the world’s fastest-growing economic region, and by 2040 is expected to account for more than half the global economy.
More than 41% of B.C.’s merchandise exports – totalling approximately $22.4 billion in 2024 – are directed toward Indo-Pacific markets.
Japan and South Korea are B.C.’s third- and fourth-largest trading partners, with 17% of all B.C. merchandise exports going to those two markets.
Almost half of all Canadian exports to South Korea originate in B.C., and B.C.’s share of Canadian exports to Japan is more than 38%.
Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced that Mark Gerretsen, Member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, will serve as Chief Government Whip.
Mr. Gerretsen was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2015. He has previously served as Deputy Government House Leader, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and as a member of various parliamentary committees.
The decisions made by this new Parliament, starting on May 26, 2025, will be decisive for Canada’s future. We will govern constructively and collaboratively, working with Caucus and across parties in Parliament to deliver the change that Canadians voted for.
While in Texas, MLA Pitt will attend the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Spring Executive Committee and Energy Supply Task Force meetings. The meetings will reconvene legislators from across the U.S. in collaborative discussions and provide a forum for MLA Pitt to advance conversations on how Alberta and the U.S. can partner in shared prosperity and economic growth though enhanced energy trade.
MLA Pitt will also take her seat at the table when she represents Alberta alongside fellow members of the NCSL’s International Legislative Advisory Committee, building on progress made at previous meetings of the committee last summer, before Christmas and in January of this year.
“It’s time to turn the page and start working together with our U.S. allies on mutually beneficial solutions that will repair and strengthen our important trade relationship. Together, I know that we can begin an era of Alberta-Canada-U.S. partnership that is unrivaled. While in San Antionio, I will drive home Alberta’s role as a reliable, affordable and responsible energy supplier in my conversations with U.S. legislators – conversations that have the potential to contribute to foundational state-level energy policies that will shape the landscape of a secure North American energy future.”
The NCSL, established in 1975 by state legislators and legislative staff, brings together lawmakers and government leaders from all 50 U.S. states, commonwealths, territories and the District of Columbia. The conference promotes cooperation and information exchanges between state legislatures in the U.S. and in other countries. Alberta formalized its role in the NCSL by becoming an affiliate member of the organization and a member of its International Advisory Council last year.
Mission expenses will be posted on the travel and expense disclosure page.
Quick facts
The U.S. is Alberta’s largest trading partner and Alberta is the second-largest provincial exporter to the U.S. after Ontario.
In 2024, Alberta’s exports to the U.S. totalled C$162.1 billion, accounting for 88.7 per cent of total provincial exports.
Energy products, including crude oil, petroleum gasses and ethylene polymers, accounted for about C$133.4 billion, 82.3 per cent of Alberta’s exports to the U.S. in 2024.
In 2024, Alberta imported about C$25.3 billion in products from the U.S., including energy, machinery, vehicles and plastics. However, these figures are underreported, as they do not account for trans-shipments.
The U.S. is also an important source of industrial inputs and consumer goods for the province.
Itinerary for MLA Pitt*
May 15
Travel to San Antonio, TX.
Join U.S. legislators and policymakers in bilateral meetings and NCSL Energy Supply Task Force roundtables.
May 16
Join U.S. legislators and policymakers in bilateral meetings, NCSL Energy Supply Task Force roundtables and at the NCSL Executive Committee Meeting.
May 17
Participate in a meeting of the NCSL’s International Advisory Council.
Join U.S. legislators and policymakers in bilateral meetings and at the NCSL Executive Committee Meeting.
Travel to Alberta.
*Subject to change.
Related information
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
NCSL Spring 2025 Energy Supply Task Force Meeting
NCSL 2025 Spring Executive Committee Meeting
Related news
Championing unity with our partners in the U.S. (Jan. 10, 2025)
Solidifying key U.S. partnerships for the year ahead (Dec. 6, 2024)
Collaborating with legislators south of the border (Aug. 2, 2024)
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, Representative Lauren Underwood, Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations delivered the following the remarks at the subcommittee’s oversight hearing on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE):
“Thank you, Chairman Amodei, and I would like to welcome our witness Todd Lyons, the Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
As the Federal agency charged with the enforcement of violations of customs and immigration laws, the scope of ICE’s investigatory and operational work is broad. ICE has an incredibly important role in preserving public safety and national security by combatting cartels and other transnational criminal organizations, investigating illicit drug trafficking, including deadly fentanyl, human trafficking and smuggling networks, and going after violations of trade and intellectual property laws that seek to undermine our economic security.
However, since January 20 we have seen a shift in priorities by this Administration away from data-driven, security-focused approaches and toward impossible politically-driven goals, like a million removals in a year. Leadership at DHS, and ICE in particular, are operating with disrespect and disregard for the foundational constitutional principles that govern our country.
As we endeavor to secure the homeland, we must continue to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As I told the Secretary last week: that is not a secondary mission.
But under the Trump Administration, ICE’s work appears to be dominated by egregious mistakes, misuse of taxpayer funds, and flagrant violations of constitutional rights like due process.
Let’s take last month in Oklahoma, where ICE sent 20 armed agents, with their rifles drawn, to storm the home of a mom who was home alone with her young daughters in the middle of the night.
These American citizens who did nothing wrong were forced to wait outside their home in the rain during a midnight investigation that had nothing to do with them.
Agents reportedly confiscated not just their phones and laptops but also their cash savings – again, these are U.S. citizens who, based on publicly available information, were never implicated in any of the crimes being investigated. It’s not even clear whether the family’s devices and savings were ever returned to them.
Your department has issued no apology, taken no accountability, just doubled down.
How can Americans trust an organization that operates like this – that treats them like this – with their national security?
ICE is the second-largest law enforcement component within DHS, America’s largest federal law enforcement agency. You are charged with upholding our laws – which start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, representing our values as Americans, and using taxpayer dollars responsibly.
And the standard we expect from our federal law enforcement is excellence. The American people deserve nothing less.
But instead of prioritizing the actual greatest threats facing America – because we all know the data shows encounters at the southern border started declining in March 2024 and keep hitting new lows – this Administration is cashing checks it does not have to reach questionable goals it cannot meet.
You’re removing people so hastily and with so little care that you’re defying court orders.
Your department is wasting millions flying the Secretary around the country for publicity stunts so she can post photos on social media from operations that are still ongoing, putting actual agents at risk.
Let me be clear – you are roughly two months away from running out of funding and a violation of the Antidefiency Act. As I said to Secretary Noem, the reliance on funding from a reconciliation bill that has not passed Congress is an incredibly risky strategy that sets you up for failure.
Lastly, let me remind you of Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress, and only Congress, the power of the purse. Increases to ICE at the expense of other national security programs and initiatives that members on both sides of the aisle voted for undermine our core work and Congressional intent. And if this committee provides funding for your agency, we have every right to oversee how those taxpayer dollars are spent.
Last week, ICE blocked members of Congress from conducting an unannounced inspection at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey. That too appears to be in violation of federal law, which clearly states we have the right to enter ICE facilities even if we show up unannounced.
Mr. Lyons, you cannot accept federal funding and then shut the door on oversight from the people’s elected representatives.
ICE is already burning the money Congress appropriated – and frankly, right now ICE has much more work to do to justify being entrusted with even more taxpayer dollars.
I am deeply concerned about the administration of funds by this department, but ICE in particular, and I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss this further with you today.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Read stories from Massachusetts and across the country
Washington (May 14, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security, today unveiled a selection of dozens of stories received by his office on Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr.’s first five months. The stories, titled “The Make America Sick Agenda,” contains stories from people who have shared their experiences under the Trump administration’s Health and Human Services, including the impacts of cutting billions in life-saving research into diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer, revoking grants to hospitals and community health centers, and firing staff dedicated to helping families pay their utility bills. All the while, RFK, Jr. spreads misinformation about vaccines amidst an uncontrolled measles outbreak.
“The stories included here are from the voices of people across the country who the Trump administration has betrayed. They are terrified of losing life-saving care. They are angry that their government would treat them this way. And they are frustrated that protecting billionaires is more important to the Administration than ensuring their ability to get the care they need, when they need it, without going into debt,” wrote Senator Markey. “These are the stories of the Trump administration’s Make America Sick Agenda. The American people deserve better.”
Selected excerpts from the compilation:
“My parents were the first generation in their families to go to college and I was a Pell Grant recipient. I am not from an ‘elite’ upbringing. I am a mother, a pediatrician and public health professor have dedicated my career to trying to address the health disadvantages accrued by people in lower income and otherwise socially disadvantaged and stigmatized populations with a specific focus on women and children. One of my NIH grants that sought to understand and improve the experiences in behavioral/mental health care of LGBTQIA+ youth ages 14-17 was terminated. The message sent is that these vulnerable youth do not matter, further making them feel unwelcome in this society. It also has had a chilling effect on my students and staff who are funded through this research, discouraging them from continuing to be part of the workforce trying to understand and make better the care and opportunities for those whom our societal decisions have disadvantaged for reasons that are beyond their control.” – Anonymous, Amherst, MA
“I have kidney cancer. As an active patient receiving extremely expensive immunotherapy treatment, if I lose my job, I’ll also lose health insurance. That is literally a death sentence.” – Joe, Bridgewater, MA
“I am a stage 4 cancer patient at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and am currently enrolled in a clinical trial there. I have a rare cancer that has no cure and few drugs to treat it. In the past 20 years, clinical trials and research about my cancer have been instrumental in helping people live longer. Cuts to the NIH and cancer research are devastating to cancer patients. Cuts to vaccine research also indirectly affect cancer patients as we are typically immunocompromised and need vaccines and for the population around us to be vaccinated. Anti-vaccine sentiments from HHS and the CDC could be detrimental to cancer patients like myself.” – Jennifer, Shrewsbury, MA
“These drastic cuts aren’t just going to devastate local jobs and people’s livelihoods and a generation of scientists. They’re rapidly destroying the infrastructure for scientific research in this country, and that’s going to have very real effects on the public’s health. The treatment and prevention advances we need for ourselves and our loved ones just won’t be there. I cannot overstate how critical it is that we act NOW. The scientific research infrastructure is far easier to break than it will be to rebuild.” – Julia, Newton, MA
“It is a sad commentary, that in a high-income country such as the US, we lagged behind other similar high-income countries in all healthcare indicators and now we are jeopardizing the even further the health of all Americans and our scientific reputation in the world. There is always room for improved organization and being efficient with our taxpayer monies but the restructuring that is taking place is without any reasonable justification based on evidence and thus, lacks in transparency to the American people. The future of all Americans is at risk here and the damage being done to the health of our people and the education system as well as our scientific innovation is devastating. We must push back.” – Anonymous, East Longmeadow, MA
Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)
RELEASE: Senator Mullin Secures Commitment on Critical Infrastructure Improvements to the Port of Catoosa
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, participated in the hearing, “To consider the nominations of: Mr. Richard L. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Mr. Adam R. Telle to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Dr. Matthew C. Napoli to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation National Nuclear Security Administration.”
In his remarks, Senator Mullin detailed the importance of the Port of Catoosa and the critical infrastructure updates that are desperately needed. Mr. Telle, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works nominee, committed to addressing the issue.
The full committee hearing can be found here.
The exchange between Senator Mullin and Mr. Adam Telle, nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, is below.
Sen. Mullin: “Mr. Telle, I want to talk to you about the Port of Catoosa. It’s a 445-mile channel that runs from essentially the Mississippi all the way up to the Port of Catoosa, which is the largest inland water port west of the Mississippi and on the Gulf of America. It also provides roughly 50% of all agricultural products that flow in and out of the Midwest, and it goes up to the Port of Catoosa, which is just outside of Tulsa. And from there, it gets on rails and trucks and gets trucked the rest of the way up. It was opened in 1971 and since roughly the 90s, we have talked about increasing the depth, because the amount of traffic that’s on it. Right now, it’s dredged at nine feet in depth, and it also has a critical backlog, which means that any of the levees could shut down at any given time, of increasing almost a billion dollars critical backlog needs.”
“The Port of Catoosa, for some reason continues to be treated like, this is not politically correct but whatever the red headed stepchild is, and other projects in Ohio or the Mississippi or other areas of waterways seem to get the most attention. However, the Midwest feeds the United States and many parts around the world, yet we’re in a critical situation here where we need to increase the depth of the channel from 9 feet to 12 feet. The study has been going on literally since the 90s. An additional study started again in 2005 and expired in roughly 2014. We could see a 40% increase in cargo influx into the port and out of the port for every foot we increase it. 40% increase cargo. Which would be drastically an improvement to what we deal with today. Not to mention the timing, the cost to get Ag products in and out of the Midwest, because as we hit the Mississippi, we actually change out of one barge to another barge that actually is obviously deeper and bigger for us to be able to navigate through the channel with.”
“My concern is that since the Corp has continued to overlook this, I’m looking for a commitment for you that you will actually take a hard look at this and understand that literally, the heartbeat of America, which is our Ag products, is in dire straits of being able to get products in and out. And if this navigation channel goes down, the cost is going to bring to all Americans’ tables, because it will increase in cargo. So, would you commit to helping us with this channel?”
Mr. Telle: “Senator Mullin, absolutely, I will. This is emblematic, the situation you described, in providing access for Oklahoma’s farmers and ranchers to the rest of the world through our waterways is emblematic of the Corp’s mission, which was originally to use our waterways for the benefit of the American public.”
“Your state’s so critical in getting the products from your state the world. And the opposite of that, getting the world’s products to you is critically important. I understand that this issue has been going on for a long time, affects the state of Arkansas as well. And certainly, as vessel traffic changes, the types of traffic change based on commercial patterns across the globe, we need to make sure that our infrastructure is up to date to meet it. And I look forward to doing everything we can to take a very hard look at this critical asset and make sure that we modernize it to the degree that we can.”
“And I would also, as you describe when we were in your office, the critical role that it plays in flood protection in that area as well. And you know, dredge material often can have a beneficial use in terms of building flood control infrastructure, levees and otherwise. So, I look forward to working with you on that and I commit to do my very best.”
Sen. Mullin: “Thank you. And I look forward to hosting you when we can get you there.”
Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
WASHINGTON, DC – During National Police Week, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) is announcing a federal grant funding opportunity for local law enforcement and encouraging Nevada departments to apply. The COPS Hiring Program federal grant is designed to provide law enforcement agencies with funding to hire more officers, implement innovative strategies to fight crime, incentivize community policing, and more. Senator Rosen has repeatedly urged Senate appropriators to support funding for the COPS Hiring Program.
This program is now accepting applications until July 1, 2025 by 4:59pm ET.
“It’s my priority to continue delivering federal funding and resources that Nevada’s law enforcement community needs to keep our communities safe and help them do their jobs effectively,” said Senator Rosen. “During National Police Week, I’m encouraging law enforcement agencies across our state to apply for this federal grant to support hiring more officers and implementing tested strategies to bolster policing efforts. I’ll keep advocating for our first responders who fight crime and protect our state.”
Senator Rosen has been working to support Nevada’s law enforcement community and ensure it has the resources needed to fight crime effectively and safely. Last year, bipartisan legislation she helped pass in the Senate to address the police officer shortage was signed into law. A bipartisan bill Rosen backed to fund family support and mental health services for law enforcement officers passed the Senate last year. Senator Rosen also introduced bipartisan legislation that would help determine best practices for identifying and treating post-traumatic stress and combating suicide among police and first responders.
Information about the available grant funding program is found below:
COPS Hiring Program – A competitive award program designed to provide funding directly to law enforcement agencies to hire and/or rehire additional career law enforcement officers in an effort to increase their community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts. Anticipated outcomes of the CHP program awards include engagement in planned community partnerships, implementation of projects to analyze and assess problems, implementation of changes to personnel and agency management in support of community policing, and increased capacity of agency to engage in community policing activities.
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after Qatar Airways announced the purchase of up to 210 American-made Boeing 787 Dreamliners and 777x aircraft. This is the largest ever order of Boeing 787 jets and will proudly be assembled in Charleston, South Carolina.
“This is great news for South Carolina and Boeing. The operative phrase is ‘largest ever.’ Today’s announcement marks Boeing’s largest ever widebody order, its largest 787 order and Qatar Airways’ largest order ever.
“Qatar Airways’ purchase will ensure the Charleston plant has work for many years to come and it is a validation of the work product coming from the Charleston Boeing facility. The Boeing workforce in South Carolina has a lot to be proud of – they consistently work hard and provide great airplanes.
“I appreciate our allies in Qatar for making this investment in Boeing aircraft and I appreciate everything the Trump Administration has done to make this possible. This is truly a gamechanger for Boeing and South Carolina.”
ADVISORY – DELAWARE COUNTY- Governor Shapiro to Announce New Proposal to Reform Private Equity in Pennsylvania Health Care, Additional Steps to Support Delaware County Community
Governor Josh Shapiro will visit Delaware County in the wake of Prospect Medical Holdings’ decision to close Crozer Health to announce a new proposal to reform private equity ownership of hospitals in Pennsylvania. The Governor will also discuss his Administration’s efforts to support the Crozer Health workforce and announce additional steps the Commonwealth is taking to support the Delaware County community.
In the last two weeks, the Administration hosted 10 live virtual meetings for impacted workers, sharing free employment resources and services so workers can find a new job, and together with Delaware County hosted a job fair featuring more than 200 employers and serving more than 1,000 attendees.
WHO: Governor Josh Shapiro Dr. Monica Taylor, Delaware County Council Chairwoman Peggy Malone, President of Crozer-Chester Nurses Association Dr. Max Cooper, Crozer ER doctor Senator Tim Kearney Representative Lisa Borowski Representative Leanne Krueger
WHEN: Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 10:45 AM
WHERE: *Press must RSVP to receive the location, arrival, and parking instructions.
LIVE STREAM: pacast.com/live/gov governor.pa.gov/live/
RSVP: Press who are interested in attending must RSVP with the names and phone numbers for each member of their team to ra-gvgovpress@pa.gov.
Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Phil Scott today issued the following statement:
“S.127 is a bill that expands Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to empower smaller, more rural towns to take advantage of this impactful economic development tool. Currently, due to complexity, only our bigger towns and cities have the capacity and resources to do so.
“S.127 passed the full Senate and then went through two House committees. Unfortunately, the House Committee on Ways and Means (tax committee) is proposing significant changes, making it harder and almost impossible for small towns with limited resources to take advantage of this tool, which will limit the housing and economic development they desperately need.
“Vermonters asked us to fix problems and make it easier for rural communities with limited resources to revitalize their economies. The House Ways and Means changes will undoubtedly have the opposite effect. I hope legislators, especially those from rural communities, will amend the bill when a vote takes place by the entire House of Representatives. The expansion of the TIF program, as originally proposed, will help lift up all corners of Vermont, from Readsboro to Richford.”
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
May 14, 2025
Warren: “At a time when college costs are already too high—when the American Dream is out of reach for too many—President Trump and Congressional Republicans are making it harder for working-class families to get ahead.”
Forum Livestream
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (BHUA), delivered opening remarks at a spotlight forum entitled “Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families.”
Senator Warren, in her opening statement, slammed President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless actions to dismantle the Department of Education, which will make it harder and more expensive for working- and middle-class kids to receive an education. She also highlighted how Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” will slash $351 billion in education funding, harming students and borrowers to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations.
Senator Warren invited Education Secretary Linda McMahon to testify at today’s hearing to defend the Trump administration’s actions to dismantle public education, including her decision to take Social Security benefits away from seniors with defaulted student loan debt. Secretary McMahon declined Senator Warren’s invitation and asked to meet with Senator Warren instead. Senator Warren closed by asking Americans to share their stories and questions for her to bring to her meeting with Secretary McMahon.
Opening Statement Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Spotlight Forum: Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families. May 14, 2025 As Prepared for Delivery
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Last month, in the face of an unprecedented attack on public education led by co-Presidents Donald Trump and Elon Musk, I launched the Save Our Schools campaign.
Trump, Musk, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon are determined to make it harder and more expensive for working- and middle-class kids to get an education. Republicans in Congress are piling on as well.
So let me be clear: I will fight for public education and for all the kids, parents, teachers, grandparents and more who want better lives for themselves and the people they love.
That’s why I’m holding today’s forum called “Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families.”
At a time when college costs are already too high—when the American Dream is out of reach for too many—President Trump and Congressional Republicans are making it harder for working-class families to get ahead.
First, they want to eliminate the Department of Education. That’s the agency that gives millions of students a chance to go to college when their families can’t just write a check for the sticker price. It’s also the agency charged with protecting students and borrowers from bad actors like shady student loan servicers and predatory for-profit colleges.
To be clear, the money we invest in post-high school education isn’t charity. This is an investment in our people so they can get good jobs, start businesses, and help grow our economy.
But Donald Trump has already fired half of the federal workers who help make these investments. He’s also signed an executive order to try to get rid of the Education Department altogether. And to top it off, he’s trying to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, taking another cop off the beat for student loan borrowers.
And if you thought we could count on Republicans in Congress to stop this madness, think again. Nope. They are making things worse—much worse.
Last month, House Republicans advanced a bill to make higher education even more expensive for American families. Why? So they can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
Their bill would increase monthly student loan payments.
It would trap borrowers with student loan debt for even longer.
It would make it harder to get Pell Grants.
It would end rules that protect students from bad schools and greedy for-profit colleges that rip them off.
Who benefits from putting all these costs on people whose only sin is to try to get an education? Only President Trump’s billionaire and millionaire friends. They want to cut these education investments and use the money to stuff their pockets with tax giveaways.
Adding insult to injury? Now, they’re going after people’s Social Security checks too. We’ve already seen the Trump Administration work to gut Social Security, which Elon Musk calls a Ponzi scheme. President Trump has let DOGE run rampant at the Social Security Administration, laying off employees and closing field offices.
Last month, the Trump Administration announced the next phase in their plans. They are getting ready to hold back Social Security checks from student loan borrowers that are in default on decades-old student loans. Almost half a million seniors could lose their Social Security benefits.
So, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and helping to educate us on how these Trump policies would hurt American families.
And I want to point out who is not here: the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon. I invited her to join today because she has a lot to answer for. The questions are pretty straightforward:
Why is the Secretary of Education jacking up costs for middle-class kids trying to go to college?
Why is the Secretary of Education firing the staff who protect students from scammers?
Why is the Secretary of Education taking away Social Security benefits from tens of thousands of seniors with student debt?
Secretary McMahon refused to answer those questions in front of the American people. Instead, she asked for a meeting. I’m happy to sit down with her. But if Secretary McMahon won’t face parents, teachers, and students who have been hurt by her reckless actions, I’m bringing their stories straight to her. So, today I’m asking everyone to share their stories. Please send them to our Save Our Schools campaign, because there is power in sharing our stories and there is power in fighting back. That is why we are here today.
SALT LAKE CITY, May 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — This Thursday marks a historic milestone for Granite Credit Union as it celebrates 90 years of unwavering service to the people of Utah. What began in 1935 with seven visionary educators pooling their resources to create a financial cooperative has grown into a nearly $900 million institution serving almost 40,000 members, and one that remains deeply committed to its founding mission: people helping people.
To honor this incredible anniversary, Granite Credit Union is inviting all members to participate in a Credit Union-wide Member Appreciation Day. Members who visit a branch will receive a commemorative 90th anniversary pin (while supplies last)—a small token to recognize the meaningful role they play in Granite’s story.
“For 90 years, Granite Credit Union has had the privilege of serving Utah’s hardworking individuals, families, educators, and small businesses,” said Mark Young, President and CEO of Granite Credit Union. “This milestone reflects the legacy of our founders, the dedication of past and current team members, and the promise of those who will carry this work forward. We are proud of our history, inspired by our members, and energized for the future.”
Granite’s deep connection to the community runs far beyond the walls of its branches. Since 2018, when Granite began documenting their service hours, team members have donated more than 3500 hours of volunteer service to nonprofits across the state, each team member, empowered to support causes they care about. In 2022, Granite formalized its philanthropic efforts with the launch of the Granite Credit Union Foundation. Since its inception, the Foundation has given more than $150,000 in donations, grants and scholarships to educators, students, and non-profits, investing in future generations and continuing the legacy of its educator founders. The credit union will award another 70 educator grants before the end of 2025.
That spirit of inclusion and service continues to define Granite’s path forward. In 2023, Granite became the first credit union in Utah to earn the Juntos Avanzamos designation, recognizing its commitment to serving and empowering Hispanic and immigrant communities with access to safe, affordable, and inclusive financial services. In addition, Granite Credit Union is listed as one of the top places to work in Salt Lake City.
As Granite celebrates this 90-year milestone, the credit union remains grounded in its core values and focused on the future. Whether through expanded access to financial products, deeper community engagement, or its pledge to serve the underserved, Granite Credit Union is—and always will be— “always there, so you can make life happen.”
Founded in 1935, Granite Credit Union serves over 37,000 members and has nearly $900 million in assets. Committed to helping members achieve their financial goals, Granite Credit Union offers a variety of financial products and services, including competitive rates, flexible lending options, and personalized financial guidance. With a vision of “always there… so you can make life happen,” the credit union strives to empower members with the tools and support they need to succeed financially. Members enjoy access to secure mobile banking services, online tools, and personalized in-branch assistance at locations across Utah. Granite Credit Union is dedicated to positively impacting its communities through financial education, trusted relationships, and exceptional service. Granite Credit Union is always there… so you can make life happen. Learn more at granite.org.
EVANSVILLE, Ind., May 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — (NASDAQ: ONB)– Old National Bancorp (the “Company” or “Old National”) today announced that its Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.14 per share on the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock. This quarterly cash dividend will be payable on June 16, 2025, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on June 5, 2025.
In addition, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $17.50 per share (equivalent to $0.4375 per depositary share or 1/40th interest per share) on Old National’s 7.0% Fixed Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (NASDAQ: ONBPP) and Series C (NASDAQ: ONBPO). The dividends are payable on August 20, 2025, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on August 5, 2025.
ABOUT OLD NATIONAL
Old National Bancorp is the holding company of Old National Bank. As the fifth largest commercial bank headquartered in the Midwest, Old National proudly serves clients primarily in the Midwest and Southeast. With approximately $70 billion of assets and $37 billion of assets under management (including Bremer Financial Corporation on a pro forma basis as of March 31, 2025), Old National ranks among the top 25 banking companies headquartered in the United States. Tracing our roots to 1834, Old National focuses on building long-term, highly valued partnerships with clients while also strengthening and supporting the communities we serve. In addition to providing extensive services in consumer and commercial banking, Old National offers comprehensive wealth management and capital markets services. For more information and financial data, please visit Investor Relations oldnational.com. In 2024, Points of Light named Old National one of “The Civic 50” – an honor reserved for the 50 most community-minded companies in the United States.
New York, NY, May 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp (Nasdaq: TVACU) (the “Company”) announced today that, commencing May 16, 2025, holders of the units sold in the Company’s initial public offering may elect to separately trade the Company’s Class A ordinary shares and warrants included in the units. No fractional warrants will be issued upon separation of the units and only whole warrants will trade. The Class A ordinary shares and warrants that are separated will trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbols “TVA” and “TVACW,” respectively. Those units not separated will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “TVACU.”
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities of the Company, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.
About Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp
Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp is a special purpose acquisition company incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands for the purpose of effecting a merger, amalgamation, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The Company may pursue an acquisition opportunity in any business, industry or geographical location.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may include, and oral statements made from time to time by representatives of the Company may include, “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements regarding possible business combinations and the financing thereof, and related matters, as well as all other statements other than statements of historical fact included in this press release are forward-looking statements. When used in this press release, words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions, as they relate to us or our management team, identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of management, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, the Company’s management. Actual results could differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors detailed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). All subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are qualified in their entirety by this paragraph. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the Risk Factors section of the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for the Company’s initial public offering filed with the SEC. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law.
The trial of the so-called “mushroom cook” Erin Patterson, currently underway in the Victorian town of Morwell, continues to generate global attention.
The mother of two is charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, all of which she denies.
Due to the regional location of the hearing and Australia’s conservative attitude toward the use of cameras in the courtroom, many people are following the case via podcast. This is not surprising, given Australia has among the world’s highest percentage of podcast consumers.
Currently Apple Australia’s Top 10 True Crime podcast chart includes three network-backed podcasts dedicated to the mushroom case. They essentially present the same information, but through different formats and structures, and to varying degrees of success.
Unlike cold case investigations, which are retrospectives that focus on breakdowns in the legal system, real-time true crime podcasts unpack complex issues and provide information to listeners while a case is under judgement.
Death cap dinner claims recapped
Prosecutors allege in July 2023 Erin Patterson laced four beef wellingtons with death cap mushrooms and served the deadly lunch to her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson; Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson; and her husband, Ian Wilkinson. But the defence has raised doubts about those claims.
The trial, now in its third week, has captured the nation. The jury has heard from Erin’s children, along with Facebook friends and the sole surviving guest Ian Wilkinson, a pastor who spent almost two months in hospital following the lunch.
Justice on demand
In Australia, the principle of open justice – that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done – is a cornerstone of the legal system. This includes making fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, and ensuring court information is accessible to the media and public.
New media forms, such as podcasts, also depend on democracy and accessibility. Anyone can speak and anyone can listen, anywhere, at any time. So true crime podcasts have naturally (and sometimes problematically) converged with the process of open justice.
Take The Australian’s 2018 podcast The Teacher’s Pet, which followed the controversial investigation of the disappearance of Lynette Dawson from the northern beaches of Sydney in 1982. It marked the first time in Australian legal history that a serialised podcast was cited as the primary reason for an application for a permanent stay of proceedings.
While the permanent stay was denied, the court did grant a temporary stay for nine months. At the hearing, Justice Elizabeth Fullerton called the podcast “the most egregious example of media interference with a criminal trial process”. She described it as “overzealous”, “uncensored” and “imbued with hubris”.
But there are some key differences between The Teacher’s Pet and the new mushroom case podcasts.
The Teacher’s Pet resurrected a cold case, and uses investigative journalism to propel interest in the real-time solving of the case, with listeners’ help. This process, known as jurification, positions the podcast host as a journalist-turned-investigator, and the listeners as jurors weighing up the evidence.
In contrast, the podcasts on the Patterson case largely rely on objective reporting to build on listeners’ understanding of the context that led to the tragic deaths of three people. These podcasts include no explicit judgement of evidence. And this allows them to skirt the potential for “trial by media”.
The Mushroom Case Daily
One of the most popular podcasts tracking the Patterson case is the ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily.
As the top-ranked podcast in Australia’s Apple charts at the time of writing, the Daily provides digestible summaries of key moments in the trial, with court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell (Stocky) recording daily from a makeshift studio in Morwell.
As the first podcast of its kind in the market (starting in March 2024), the Daily is informative and engaging, but not sensationalist or self-serving. It reports on the facts, but does not shy away from empathetic identification with the victims – helping the audience feel involved in the story.
Interestingly, the Daily even builds empathy for Patterson herself. It humanises the accused by reporting on her emotional displays, and by seeking to understand her actions and reactions, rather than merely vilifying her.
The Daily also refuses to speculate about whether Patterson is guilty or not, as do its competitors. In doing so, it upholds the legal and ethical obligation of court reporters to maintain impartiality and not misinterpret or misrepresent information.
At the same time, it is one of the more intimate accounts of the trial, with a relaxed and conversational style. It’s also more interactive than its rivals, as listeners are encouraged to write in with questions.
Both are uploaded regularly, with a goal to summarise the events of the day’s trial and highlight the most significant revelations.
The Mushroom Cook is presented by Herald Sun journalists Brooke Grebert-Craig and Laura Placella. It began in April 2024 with a detailed explanation of the case, in anticipation of the criminal proceedings, and has continued to report on developments over the past year via short episodes of 15 minutes or less.
Say Grace, a 9Podcast presented by Penelope Liersch (Nine) and Erin Pearson (The Age), started on April 20 of this year, the day of jury selection. It provides more detailed episodes of about 30 minutes in length.
Unlike the Daily, both of these podcasts use reenactments with voice actors performing the witness testimony. This provides a sense of authenticity and immediacy; listeners feel like they themselves are in the courtroom, privy to the evidence. However, the ethics of reenactments in video and audio documentary are murky. While some people say they aid understanding, others may see them as introducing bias or distorting reality.
Like the Daily, both The Mushroom Cook and Say Grace are acutely aware of the potential ethical and legal risks of reporting on the case. They take care to avoid conjecture and misrepresentation, such as by using explicit disclaimers before reenactments.
Although both podcasts are presented in a casual and conversational style, Say Grace offers more in-depth commentary on the case, using descriptive language to paint a vivid picture of courtroom proceedings.
Ultimately, each of these three podcasts is serving more than listeners’ suspicions; they are providing an important public service by reporting the truth and preserving open justice.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce completed its reconciliation markup hearing on budget recommendations that fall in line with the budget resolution. The House Budget Committee will receive the Energy and Commerce recommendations as they prepare to draft a reconciliation package. U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement:
“Congressional Democrats and progressive prognosticators shouted day and night that the Energy and Commerce Committee couldn’t make budget recommendations without massive, significant cuts to Medicaid. And yet, House Republicans proved them all wrong. I look forward to working with House Republicans during the next phase of the reconciliation process to produce a bill that carries out a pro-growth, commonsense agenda.”
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed U.S. Senate-amended H. Con. Res. 14, a budget resolution that sets fiscal objectives for House committees to identify potential savings.
The resolution instructs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to identify a target of $880 billion in savings.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce started its markup hearing on Tuesday, May 13.
The Committee’s proposed recommendations must still be considered by the Budget Committee. Changes to the underlying reconciliation bill are still possible and then must be voted on by both chambers of Congress.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Paul Tonko (Capital Region New York)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In his closing remarks, during a 26-hour long markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican budget, Congressman Paul D. Tonko (NY-20) shared the story of a local family who relies on Medicaid and who would be hurt by the massive healthcare cuts included in the GOP budget. Throughout the markup, Tonko shared firsthand accounts of constituents across the district who would have their Medicaid coverage ripped away as a result of Republicans’ budget cuts. In his closing remarks today, Tonko highlighted the story of Sara, the mother of a 16-month-old pediatric stroke survivor who relies on Medicaid to get the care he deserves.
Tonko spoke with Sara directly about the impact of Medicaid in providing support her son. Their conversation can be viewed HERE.
Tonko’s full remarks can be viewed HERE or read below as prepared for delivery:
As we wind down this debate, I have a confession to make.
I’m tired.
I know we’re all tired too.
We’ve been at this more than 25 hours now.
But while I am tired, I am also energized.
Because I know our cause is just.
And because I know that these past 25 hours have helped to illuminate the stakes of this debate for the American people.
And the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The choices that are made in this room today, and in our House of Representatives will impact the lives of millions of people we will never meet.
In this moment, I’m thinking of how this might impact one family I have met – Sara and her son Cameron from Niskayuna, New York.
Cameron is a 16-month-old pediatric stroke survivor. Cam was previously normally developing and healthy, but at 7 months old, he had a rare pediatric stroke that changed everything.
Sara shared how they quickly found themselves in a community of parents with disabled kids that rely on Medicaid. Her son receives 5 to 6 therapies a week and goes to 2 to 3 doctors’ appointments every month.
Medicaid is the safety net that supports them to provide things like copays and medical braces, which add up and make a huge difference.
Sara’s story could be any of our stories. She shared with me:
“It really hits home for me that Cameron became disabled after his stroke, pretty much overnight, our lives changed. So, I think what people may be missing here is, anyone can become disabled at any moment and therefore you may not have the coverage you once thought you had.”
Republicans falsely claim that children like Cameron won’t be impacted by their package, but I’ve read the text and that’s simply not true.
New York State stands to lose billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid from the reduced federal match, the provider tax provisions and more senseless provisions in this cruel package.
Again, let me reiterate: when states have to make these massive cuts to their Medicaid programs, where do you think they’re going to look first?
To the most expensive patients: the elderly, the sick, and the disabled. To the very people that my Republican colleagues claim they are trying to protect.
Republicans have been offered so many opportunities today to put pen to paper on their claims that this bill won’t hurt people like Cameron.
They’ve refused to do so.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Here’s your last chance.
Support this amendment and let’s make an ironclad guarantee to folks like Sara and Cameron that we’re going to take care of them.
Let’s make that ironclad guarantee that lets this family sleep a little easier tonight.
I’m ready to make that promise. And I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) along with Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), today introduced the End Price Gouging for Medications Act.
The bicameral bill would lower prescription drug costs for all Americans and end pharmaceutical price gouging by requiring drug companies to offer medications in the United States at no more than the lowest price per drug in twelve other similarly developed countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
“In the wealthiest nation on earth, no one should have to choose between buying groceries and affording the medications they need to survive.” said Dingell. “There’s no reason we should be spending more on prescriptions than any other country. This legislation will bring down the cost of prescription drugs, hold drug companies accountable for their unchecked greed, and provide much-needed relief to American families.”
“Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, even though we invest the most in cutting-edge research and development. That is unconscionable,” said Merkley. “In my town halls across every corner of Oregon, I’ve heard time and again from Oregonians about how sky-high prescription drug prices are pushing their budgets to the limit. The End Price Gouging for Medications Act will crack down on Big Pharma’s greed. If President Trump is serious about lowering prescription drug costs for families and seniors across America, he should work with Congress to ensure we get the best prices, not the worst.”
“No one should ever be forced to choose between paying for the prescriptions they need or putting food on the table. It’s unacceptable, and for too many Americans it’s a reality because of Big Pharma’s price gouging,” said Welch. “The End Price Gouging for Medications Act would put an end to this bad practice and help more Vermonters access the medications they need. I’m proud to join Sen. Merkley to introduce this bill and help Vermonters get the care they need.”
On average, Americans spend over $1,400 on prescription drugs every year—the highest per capita drug spending in the world—largely because the pharmaceutical industry is hiking up the cost of drugs to make billions in profits each year. The American people want action, and lowering prescription drug prices to levels obtained in nations similar to the United States has strong bipartisan support. This includes medication such as:
Ozempic, which costs Americans nearly $13,000 annually to treat type 2 diabetes compared to roughly $820 in Japan; and
Humira, which costs Americans with Crohn’s disease more than $100,000 per year compared to roughly $3,320 per year in Austria.
Unlike Trump’s recent executive order (EO) on international reference pricing, which only applies to Medicare and Medicaid, the End Price Gouging for Medications Act goes further by requiring drug companies to offer prescription drugs at the established reference price to all individuals in the U.S. market, regardless of insurance or health care status. That includes individuals utilizing all federal health programs,uninsured individuals, individuals covered under a group health plan, or individuals who have purchased their own health insurance coverage.
In addition to Dingell, Merkley, Welch, and Sanders, the End Price Gouging for Medications Act is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). The bicameral bill is endorsed by Public Citizen, Center for Health and Democracy, Just Care USA, Center for Medicare Advocacy, and Social Security Works.
“American consumers pay far too much for drugs, not because it is costly to manufacture them, or even because of the expense of research and development. We pay too much because the U.S. government grants patents and other monopolies to brand-name drug corporations and then does far too little to rein in Big Pharma’s exploitation of those monopolies to price gouge consumers and the government itself. If President Trump were serious about bringing U.S. drug prices down to levels in other countries, he would embrace this legislation and use the bully pulpit to urge legislators to support it instead of retrograde proposals to take away health care from millions of people to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. We applaud Senators Merkley, Sanders and Welch for their leadership,” said Peter Maybarduk, Director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines Program.
“There’s no good reason Americans should be forced to pay as much as four times more for our drugs than people in France, Japan and Canada. Senator Merkley, Senator Welch, Ranking Member Sanders, and Representative Dingell’s ‘End Price Gouging for Medications Act’ legislation recognizes that monopoly pricing by drug corporations is killing tens of thousands of Americans each year and driving countless more into medical debt. It rightly calls for fair drug pricing, which is essential to our health and well-being,” said Diane Archer, President, Just Care USA.
Full text of the End Price Gouging for Medications Act can be found here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Washington, D.C. –This week, the House Natural Resources Committee passed its directives for the Reconciliation process, which includes $18.5 billion in savings. In addition, Rep. Mark Amodei’s amendment pertaining to disposal of Federal lands in Nevada was included in the package.
“This week, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced our portion of the budget reconciliation bill, delivering on the Administration’s commitment to curb reckless spending, steward taxpayer dollars responsibly, and identify smart investments,”said Rep. Mark Amodei.“Our contributions will generate a total of $18.5 billion in savings, well beyond our $1 billion target.
“In addition to these historic savings, my Nevada-centric lands amendment was included in the package. The reality is, most of my colleagues don’t fully grasp the unique challenges Nevada faces as a state that is 80% federally owned. For years, folks from my district, and even across district lines, have voiced serious concerns about how these vast stretches of public land could threaten Nevada’s economic momentum and competitiveness if we run out of usable acreage.
“With Republicans holding only a slim majority, the reconciliation process presented a rare vehicle to advance these land disposal requests and ensure the priorities of our county commissions were heard. This is only the first step in our efforts to support responsible development in our state while also delivering a meaningful return for the American taxpayer.”
Background
The Reconciliation Process
Reconciliation is a rigorous process that allows the President’s agenda to move forward without being blocked by a Senate filibuster. It began with both the House and Senate passing an identical budget blueprint that provided clear directives for committees to identify areas for saving and investment. Congressional committees have been working to turn those directives into actionable legislation within their respective jurisdictions.
All proposed legislation must meet deficit-reducing or revenue-related targets. The end goal is to compile all legislation passed through committees and bring it onto the chamber floors for voting in one big bill.
Rep. Amodei’s Land Disposal Amendment
Nevada’s population centers are all encumbered by Federal lands and can’t meet their housing and development needs without disposal of Federal lands. Unlike most other states, Nevadans rely on Congress to make these lands available.
Each of the maps included in this amendment was generated by the respective counties referenced in the bill. National Parks and areas of significant environmental value are not included in the list of disposal lands within the amendment, and all disposal of Federal lands must still go through the NEPA process and comply with existing federal regulations. This amendment focuses on communities who have been starved of development and housing needs.
Breakdown of the Amendment
* 449,174 acres are encompassed in the amendment; however, 356,100 acres are part of the Pershing County checkerboard resolution that have no net change in federal ownership.
Washoe County
The amendment identifies 15,860 acres in Washoe County for disposal, also allowing for joint selection between the County and Federal government to prioritize lands for affordable housing development.
Clark County
The amendment identifies 65,129 acres in Clark County for disposal, also allowing for joint selection between the County and Federal government to prioritize lands for affordable housing development. The amendment includes a savings clause to ensure that no proceeds deposited into the SNPLMA special account under previous lands sales are to be rescinded or redirected.
Lyon County
The amendment identifies 12,085 acres in Lyon County, which will be sold for fair market value to the City of Fernley, Nevada and be developed as the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRIC) II.
Pershing County
The amendment authorizes the sale or exchange of lands previously identified for disposal by the BLM in a streamlined manner. This encompasses approximately 356,100 acres of land to be exchanged at a 1:1 ratio.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Riley Moore (WV-02)
Washington, D.C. – This afternoon, Congressman Riley M. Moore introduced a resolution with 20 of his House colleagues to honor Pope Leo XIV after his historic election to the Chair of St. Peter. Born Robert Francis Prevost, Pope Leo XIV is a native of Chicago and graduate of Villanova University. He was ordained a priest in 1982 and named a Cardinal by Pope Francis in 2023.
Congressman Moore issued the following statement:
“I was thrilled to hear of Pope Leo’s XIV election to the Chair of St. Peter, and have felt a tremendous sense of national pride that an American now leads the Catholic Church.
“I pray the Lord blesses the Holy Father with the great wisdom and unyielding courage necessary to preach the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Represenative Tom Suozzi (D-NY) co-led the resolution with Congressman Moore. Joining on as original co-sponsors were Representatives Tom Barrett (R-MI); Ryan Zinke (R-MT); Ann Wagner (R-MO); Michael McCaul (R-TX); Rob Bresnahan, Jr. (R-PA); Michael Rulli (R-OH); Stephanie Bice (R-OK); Lisa McClain (R-MI); John Rose (R-TN); Bryan Steil (R-WI); Mark Messmer (R-IN); Carlos Gimenez (R-FL); Chris Smith (R-NJ); French Hill (R-AR); John Rutherford (R-FL); Tony Gonzales (R-TX); Jeff Hurd (R-CO); Don Bacon (R-NE); and Jen Kiggans (R-VA).
The Daily Wire first covered the story, read more here.
