Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
WASHINGTON – Freddie Lee Hall, Jr., 57, of the District of Columbia, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 84 months in prison in connection with distributing crack cocaine while in possession of multiple firearms, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
Hall pleaded guilty Feb. 13, 2025, before Judge Trevor N. McFadden to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In addition to the prison sentence, Judge McFadden ordered Hall to serve five years of supervised release.
According to court documents, Hall was recorded on surveillance cameras 13 times in 2024 as he sold distribution quantities of cocaine base – in amounts ranging from 13.5 grams to 106 grams, for a total over three-quarters of a kilogram – to a confidential informant working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division.
ATF agents arrested Hall on Aug. 22, 2024, in Northwest Washington. The same day, agents executed a search warrant at Hall’s residence in District Heights, Maryland. ATF special agents recovered seven firearms in total: a Ruger LC pistol concealed on a basement air duct; a Panzer BP12 shotgun, stashed behind a bedroom door; and five additional firearms in a gun safe that included a privately made firearm, aka a “ghost gun,” a loaded Ruger P89 pistol, a loaded Taurus GX4 pistol with an obliterated serial number, a Ruger P95 pistol, and a loaded American Tactical AR pistol with obliterated serial number. They also seized 1,400 rounds of ammunition from 17 firearms magazines.
During the search ATF agents observed what appeared to be freshly manufactured crack cocaine drying on paper towels in a basement bedroom. They additionally recovered a large quantity of marijuana, 547 grams of powder cocaine, 72.86 grams of cocaine base, two pounds of suspected magic mushrooms, assorted drug paraphernalia and manufacturing devices, and more than $61,763 in cash.
This case was investigated by the DEA Washington Division, the ATF Washington Field Division, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Prince George’s County Police Department. Valuable assistance was provided by the Prince George’s County Fire-EMS, Office of the Fire Marshal. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared English and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul V. Courtney.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
WASHINGTON – Freddie Lee Hall, Jr., 57, of the District of Columbia, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 84 months in prison in connection with distributing crack cocaine while in possession of multiple firearms, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
Hall pleaded guilty Feb. 13, 2025, before Judge Trevor N. McFadden to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In addition to the prison sentence, Judge McFadden ordered Hall to serve five years of supervised release.
According to court documents, Hall was recorded on surveillance cameras 13 times in 2024 as he sold distribution quantities of cocaine base – in amounts ranging from 13.5 grams to 106 grams, for a total over three-quarters of a kilogram – to a confidential informant working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division.
ATF agents arrested Hall on Aug. 22, 2024, in Northwest Washington. The same day, agents executed a search warrant at Hall’s residence in District Heights, Maryland. ATF special agents recovered seven firearms in total: a Ruger LC pistol concealed on a basement air duct; a Panzer BP12 shotgun, stashed behind a bedroom door; and five additional firearms in a gun safe that included a privately made firearm, aka a “ghost gun,” a loaded Ruger P89 pistol, a loaded Taurus GX4 pistol with an obliterated serial number, a Ruger P95 pistol, and a loaded American Tactical AR pistol with obliterated serial number. They also seized 1,400 rounds of ammunition from 17 firearms magazines.
During the search ATF agents observed what appeared to be freshly manufactured crack cocaine drying on paper towels in a basement bedroom. They additionally recovered a large quantity of marijuana, 547 grams of powder cocaine, 72.86 grams of cocaine base, two pounds of suspected magic mushrooms, assorted drug paraphernalia and manufacturing devices, and more than $61,763 in cash.
This case was investigated by the DEA Washington Division, the ATF Washington Field Division, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Prince George’s County Police Department. Valuable assistance was provided by the Prince George’s County Fire-EMS, Office of the Fire Marshal. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared English and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul V. Courtney.
The roar of the arena crowd, the bustle of the Roman forum, the grand temples, the Roman army in red with glistening shields and armour – when people imagine ancient Rome, they often think of its sights and sounds. We know less, however, about the scents of ancient Rome.
We cannot, of course, go back and sniff to find out. But the literary texts, physical remains of structures, objects, and environmental evidence (such as plants and animals) can offer clues.
So what might ancient Rome have smelled like?
Honestly, often pretty rank
In describing the smells of plants, author and naturalist Pliny the Elder uses words such as iucundus (agreeable), acutus (pungent), vis (strong), or dilutus (weak).
None of that language is particularly evocative in its power to transport us back in time, unfortunately.
But we can probably safely assume that, in many areas, Rome was likely pretty dirty and rank-smelling. Property owners did not commonly connect their toilets to the sewers in large Roman towns and cities – perhaps fearing rodent incursions or odours.
Roman sewers were more like storm drains, and served to take standing water away from public areas.
Professionals collected faeces for fertiliser and urine for cloth processing from domestic and public latrines and cesspits. Chamber pots were also used, which could later be dumped in cesspits.
This waste disposal process was just for those who could afford to live in houses; many lived in small, non-domestic spaces, barely furnished apartments, or on the streets.
A common whiff in the Roman city would have come from the animals and the waste they created. Roman bakeries frequently used large lava stone mills (or “querns”) turned by mules or donkeys. Then there was the smell of pack animals and livestock being brought into town for slaughter or sale.
The large “stepping-stones” still seen in the streets of Pompeii were likely so people could cross streets and avoid the assorted feculence that covered the paving stones.
Disposal of corpses (animals and human) was not formulaic. Depending on the class of the person who had died, people might well have been left out in the open without cremation or burial.
Bodies, potentially decaying, were a more common sight in ancient Rome than now.
Suetonius, writing in the first century CE, famously wrote of a dog carrying a severed human hand to the dining table of the Emperor Vespasian.
Deodorants and toothpastes
In a world devoid of today’s modern scented products – and daily bathing by most of the population – ancient Roman settlements would have smelt of body odour.
Classical literature has some recipes for toothpaste and even deodorants.
One was made by boiling golden thistle root in fine wine to induce urination (which was thought to flush out odour).
The Roman baths would likely not have been as hygienic as they may appear to tourists visiting today. A small tub in a public bath could hold between eight and 12 bathers.
The Romans had soap, but it wasn’t commonly used for personal hygiene. Olive oil (including scented oil) was preferred. It was scraped off the skin with a strigil (a bronze curved tool).
This oil and skin combination was then discarded (maybe even slung at a wall). Baths had drains – but as oil and water don’t mix, it was likely pretty grimy.
Scented perfumes
The Romans did have perfumes and incense.
The invention of glassblowing in the late first century BCE (likely in Roman-controlled Jerusalem) made glass readily available, and glass perfume bottles are a common archaeological find.
Animal and plant fats were infused with scents – such as rose, cinnamon, iris, frankincense and saffron – and were mixed with medicinal ingredients and pigments.
The roses of Paestum in Campania (southern Italy) were particularly prized, and a perfume shop has even been excavated in the city’s Roman forum.
The trading power of the vast Roman empire meant spices could be sourced from India and the surrounding regions.
There were warehouses for storing spices such as pepper, cinnamon and myrrh in the centre of Rome.
In a recent Oxford Journal of Archaeology article, researcher Cecilie Brøns writes that even ancient statues could be perfumed with scented oils.
Sources frequently do not describe the smell of perfumes used to anoint the statues, but a predominantly rose-based perfume is specifically mentioned for this purpose in inscriptions from the Greek city of Delos (at which archaeologists have also identified perfume workshops). Beeswax was likely added to perfumes as a stabiliser.
Enhancing the scent of statues (particularly those of gods and goddesses) with perfumes and garlands was important in their veneration and worship.
An olfactory onslaught
The ancient city would have smelt like human waste, wood smoke, rotting and decay, cremating flesh, cooking food, perfumes and incense, and many other things.
It sounds awful to a modern person, but it seems the Romans did not complain about the smell of the ancient city that much.
Perhaps, as historian Neville Morley has suggested, to them these were the smells of home or even of the height of civilisation.
Thomas J. Derrick 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: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology
The beginning of the financial year means for the first time in Australia the public will see previously unreleased tax reports produced by multinational taxpayers.
These documents, known as country-by-country reports, or CbCR for short, contain information about the tax practices of large Australian businesses and foreign businesses operating in Australia. This information, previously only available to the taxpayer and the Australian Tax Office, will be made public.
Country-by-country reports, announced in the October 2022-2023 budget, were introduced with other measures designed to improve corporate tax behaviour. The reports will be released from this week as part of corporate reporting practices. Multinationals have 12 months to comply.
A fairer tax system
Country-by-country reporting forms part of the government’s multinational tax integrity election commitment package. The aim is to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. Large firms will be required to publish a statement on their global activities plus tax information for each jurisdiction in which they operate.
Until now, large multinationals only had to prepare annual consolidated financial statements under international financial reporting standards. The traditional reports aggregate results and provide limited geographic reporting information.
Traditional high-level reporting allows multinationals to conceal their country-level activities. This hides questionable tax practices.
Country-by-country reporting allows us to better see where a multinational operates. More importantly, the amount of activity in each jurisdiction is reported. The information provides clues as to whether artificial profit shifting has occurred.
Anyone interested can uncover details about how multinationals structure their global operations. Information may reveal a misalignment between the company’s real economic presence in a country, the profits they book and taxes they pay in that country.
Bringing Australia into line with the EU
Country-by-country reporting is not new. It is the requirement that the information be made public that has changed.
Australian firms have been required to provide such reports to the Australian Tax Office since 2016. However, the information has been confidential.
The new public disclosure law brings Australia in line with large firms operating in the European Union which brought in the change last year.
How country-by-country reporting works
A taxpayer with annual global income above A$1 billion and at least A$10 million of its turnover Australian-sourced will need to produce a report. The obligation to disclose rests with the parent entity no matter where they are located.
Australia’s largest companies, including mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP, biotech firm CSL, and investment bank Macquarie Group, will be among those expected to report, as will foreign tech behemoths such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta.
These tech giants are the same US firms likely to be excluded from the global minimum tax rules under a G7 agreement reached last week. Under the agreement, US multinationals were exempted from paying more corporate tax overseas. Other G7 members gave in to protect their own companies from the US’s threat of retaliation.
Under the law change in Australia, a parent entity will provide its name, the names of all members of the group, a description of their approach to tax, and information about operations in certain countries. Included on the list are countries that attract multinationals due to reduced tax obligations, such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the Bahamas.
Everyone will be able to see where a multinational is operating. They will also see the types of business activities conducted, number of employees, assets, revenue, and taxes paid. Large profits in a country but little business activity and very few employees may raise questions, especially if a country has a low tax rate.
Benefits of better transparency
Access to the extra information will help investors assess the tax and reputational risk of a firm. A multinational that shifts profits to low tax countries may be audited and pay extra tax and penalties.
Increased transparency allows greater scrutiny. In turn, it is hoped multinationals will reduce aggressive tax planning due to potential risk to their reputation.
If multinationals shift less taxable profits out of Australia to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions, this will lead to Australia receiving a greater share of much needed corporate tax revenue.
Increased tax transparency helps investors and tax authorities to better understand a multinational’s economic and tax geographic footprint. It is also important when it seems that US giants will be excluded from the 15% global minimum tax rules. Transparency by itself, however, does not lead to multinationals paying more corporate taxes.
By its very nature, tax avoidance is legal but pushes the boundaries by going against the spirit of the law. Indeed, many large multinationals argue tax is a legal obligation and is not voluntary. They maintain they pay the tax required of them according to the law.
Undoubtedly, Australia’s new public country-by-country regime is a positive step for tax transparency. As a country initiative, it has been applauded as groundbreaking and world leading. However, it is not a panacea to corporate tax avoidance.
To limit corporate tax avoidance and have multinationals pay more corporate taxes, we must get to the heart of the problem. We must change the law that dictates the way multinationals are taxed.
Kerrie Sadiq currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.
Rodney Brown has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology
The beginning of the financial year means for the first time in Australia the public will see previously unreleased tax reports produced by multinational taxpayers.
These documents, known as country-by-country reports, or CbCR for short, contain information about the tax practices of large Australian businesses and foreign businesses operating in Australia. This information, previously only available to the taxpayer and the Australian Tax Office, will be made public.
Country-by-country reports, announced in the October 2022-2023 budget, were introduced with other measures designed to improve corporate tax behaviour. The reports will be released from this week as part of corporate reporting practices. Multinationals have 12 months to comply.
A fairer tax system
Country-by-country reporting forms part of the government’s multinational tax integrity election commitment package. The aim is to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. Large firms will be required to publish a statement on their global activities plus tax information for each jurisdiction in which they operate.
Until now, large multinationals only had to prepare annual consolidated financial statements under international financial reporting standards. The traditional reports aggregate results and provide limited geographic reporting information.
Traditional high-level reporting allows multinationals to conceal their country-level activities. This hides questionable tax practices.
Country-by-country reporting allows us to better see where a multinational operates. More importantly, the amount of activity in each jurisdiction is reported. The information provides clues as to whether artificial profit shifting has occurred.
Anyone interested can uncover details about how multinationals structure their global operations. Information may reveal a misalignment between the company’s real economic presence in a country, the profits they book and taxes they pay in that country.
Bringing Australia into line with the EU
Country-by-country reporting is not new. It is the requirement that the information be made public that has changed.
Australian firms have been required to provide such reports to the Australian Tax Office since 2016. However, the information has been confidential.
The new public disclosure law brings Australia in line with large firms operating in the European Union which brought in the change last year.
How country-by-country reporting works
A taxpayer with annual global income above A$1 billion and at least A$10 million of its turnover Australian-sourced will need to produce a report. The obligation to disclose rests with the parent entity no matter where they are located.
Australia’s largest companies, including mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP, biotech firm CSL, and investment bank Macquarie Group, will be among those expected to report, as will foreign tech behemoths such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta.
These tech giants are the same US firms likely to be excluded from the global minimum tax rules under a G7 agreement reached last week. Under the agreement, US multinationals were exempted from paying more corporate tax overseas. Other G7 members gave in to protect their own companies from the US’s threat of retaliation.
Under the law change in Australia, a parent entity will provide its name, the names of all members of the group, a description of their approach to tax, and information about operations in certain countries. Included on the list are countries that attract multinationals due to reduced tax obligations, such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the Bahamas.
Everyone will be able to see where a multinational is operating. They will also see the types of business activities conducted, number of employees, assets, revenue, and taxes paid. Large profits in a country but little business activity and very few employees may raise questions, especially if a country has a low tax rate.
Benefits of better transparency
Access to the extra information will help investors assess the tax and reputational risk of a firm. A multinational that shifts profits to low tax countries may be audited and pay extra tax and penalties.
Increased transparency allows greater scrutiny. In turn, it is hoped multinationals will reduce aggressive tax planning due to potential risk to their reputation.
If multinationals shift less taxable profits out of Australia to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions, this will lead to Australia receiving a greater share of much needed corporate tax revenue.
Increased tax transparency helps investors and tax authorities to better understand a multinational’s economic and tax geographic footprint. It is also important when it seems that US giants will be excluded from the 15% global minimum tax rules. Transparency by itself, however, does not lead to multinationals paying more corporate taxes.
By its very nature, tax avoidance is legal but pushes the boundaries by going against the spirit of the law. Indeed, many large multinationals argue tax is a legal obligation and is not voluntary. They maintain they pay the tax required of them according to the law.
Undoubtedly, Australia’s new public country-by-country regime is a positive step for tax transparency. As a country initiative, it has been applauded as groundbreaking and world leading. However, it is not a panacea to corporate tax avoidance.
To limit corporate tax avoidance and have multinationals pay more corporate taxes, we must get to the heart of the problem. We must change the law that dictates the way multinationals are taxed.
Kerrie Sadiq currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.
Rodney Brown has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michalis Hadjikakou, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University
The way we currently produce and consume food takes a big toll on the environment.
Worldwide, farming is responsible for more than 20% of greenhouse gas emissions and uses more than 70% of all fresh water taken from rivers, lakes and groundwater. It’s the leading driver of deforestation and nutrient pollution, largely from fertiliser run-off. All of these pose a serious threat to ecosystems.
If this sounds serious, it’s because it is. If emissions and land clearing trends continue, the world’s food system alone could make it impossible to meet climate targets. If we continue eating and producing food in the same way we are now, we will almost certainly exceed crucial environmental limits by 2050.
What can be done? In our new research, we looked for ways to keep the food system within environmental limits by 2050. We found only one approach worked: combine high-impact changes such as shifting to flexitarian (low meat) diets, improving farming practices and reducing food waste.
Why will farming take us past environmental limits?
Environmental limits are also known as planetary boundaries. These nine boundaries are Earth’s natural safety limits. They range from freshwater resources to the biosphere to the climate. Human activities have pushed past six out of nine safe boundaries through clearing too much land, overusing water for irrigation, overapplying fertilisers or emitting more than our shrinking carbon budget permits.
If we cross these thresholds, we risk dangerous and irreversible changes to the conditions supporting a stable planet.
Transforming the way we farm and eat is essential if we are to keep humanity in a safe operating space within environmental limits.
The 2021 documentary Breaking Boundaries focused on the very real dangers of breaching planetary limits.
What does this transformation look like?
The challenge of making food production sustainable is long-running. Previous research has compared the effectiveness of different changes authorities and consumers could make. But most studies used different models, making it hard to compare changes.
To overcome this problem, we synthesised information from previous studies and built a database of thousands of future food system scenarios and possible changes. Then we performed a meta-analysis to combine data from multiple studies and draw more robust conclusions.
This approach allows policymakers and researchers to compare apples and apples, as well as see which combination of changes would let us stay within crucial safety limits by 2050.
We focused on four vital indicators: how much land and water is used for farming; the amount of greenhouse gases emitted; and the flows of two key nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus.
What works best?
What stood out was the sheer variation in effectiveness. Some changes would work very well across several areas, while others would take a lot of effort for not enough result.
Two changes punch well above their weight on land, water and emissions.
The first is shifting to a flexitarian diet with fewer foods sourced from animals. This is similar to traditional regional diets such as the Mediterranean and Okinawan diets, where meat and dairy are eaten in much smaller proportions compared to whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes.
Returning to this diet could shrink how much land we use for farming by almost a quarter (24%), cut water demand by 14% and slash greenhouse gas emissions by 47%.
Traditional diets such as the Mediterranean diet rely less on animal products and more on plants, nuts, oils and legumes. monticello/Shutterstock
The second is breeding better livestock. Livestock today are much better at converting their feed into meat or milk than their precursors. But this could be better still. More productive animals could enable an 18% reduction in land use, a 10% drop in water use and a 34% cut to emissions.
Modern fertilisers have made it possible to produce many more crops and fodder. But if too much fertiliser is applied, it can wash off after rain and pollute waterways.
Better timed and more precise application of fertiliser is by far the best way to cut nutrient pollution. Major improvements here could cut nitrogen pollution by 39% and phosphorus pollution by 42%. As a side benefit, it could save farmers money.
Increasing crop yields, lowering agricultural emissions through better soil management and other practices, and taking up technologies such as methane-reducing supplements can significantly reduce our risk of exceeding environmental limits. So too can cutting food waste and using water more wisely in farming. Our extended results show the relative benefits of ten possible interventions.
There is no silver bullet
We found no single change was up to the task of making food production and consumption sustainable.
We considered over a million possible combinations of changes. Of these combinations, only a tiny fraction – 0.02% – give us a fighting chance of staying within all environmental limits.
In almost all successful combinations, the world would need to make significant cuts to how many calories come from animals, make big improvements to fertiliser use and nutrient management, and focus research and development on finding ways to farm land and livestock with less resources and emissions.
Most successful combinations also rely on halving food waste and reducing overconsumption.
Is it still possible?
Farming within the limits of Earth’s systems will be hard. But it is possible.
Some work is already being done. Global organisations such as the United Nations are making a concerted effort to accelerate changes to food systems across many countries.
Research like ours can make people feel powerless. But individual change is always worthwhile. Reducing your intake of animal products benefits your health and the planet.
Properly addressing these very real issues will take concerted, collective work. If we don’t succeed, we risk triggering ecological collapse – and threatening the foundation for human civilisation.
The knowledge and tools are at hand. What’s needed now is ambition – and a sense of what’s at stake.
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.
People with poor mental health face many challenges. One that’s perhaps lesser known is that they’re more likely than the overall population to have poor oral health.
Research has shown people with serious mental illness are four times more likely than the general population to have gum disease. They’re nearly three times more likely to have lost all their teeth due to problems such as gum disease and tooth decay.
People living with schizophrenia have, on average, eight more teeth that are decayed, missing or filled than the general population.
So why does this link exist? And what can we do to address the problem?
Why is this a problem?
Oral health problems are expensive to fix and can make it hard for people to eat, socialise, work or even just smile.
What’s more, dental issues can land people in hospital. Our research shows dental conditions are the third most common reason for preventable hospital admissions among people with serious mental illness.
Meanwhile, poor oral health is linked with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and even cognitive problems. This is because the bacteria associated with gum diseases can cause inflammation throughout the body, which affects other systems in the body.
Why are mental health and oral health linked?
Poor mental and oral health share common risk factors. Social factors such as isolation, unemployment and housing insecurity can worsen both oral and mental health.
For example, unemployment increases the risk of oral disease. This can be due to financial difficulties, reduced access to oral health care, or potential changes to diet and hygiene practices.
It’s clear the relationship between oral health and mental health goes both ways. Dental disease can reduce self-esteem and increase psychological distress. Meanwhile, symptoms of mental health conditions, such as low motivation, can make engaging in good oral health practices, including brushing, flossing, and visiting the dentist, more difficult.
And like many people, those with serious mental illness can experience significant anxiety about going to the dentist. They may also have experienced trauma in the past, which can make visiting a dental clinic a frightening experience.
Separately, poor oral health can be made worse by some medications for mental health conditions. Certain medications can interfere with saliva production, reducing the protective barrier that covers the teeth. Some may also increase sugar cravings, which heightens the risk of tooth decay.
In a recent study, we interviewed young people with mental illness. Our findings show the significant personal costs of dental disease among people with mental illness, and highlight the relationship between oral and mental health.
Smiling is one of our best ways to communicate, but we found people with serious mental illness were sometimes embarrassed and ashamed to smile due to poor oral health.
One participant told us:
[poor oral health is] not only [about] the physical aspects of restricting how you eat, but it’s also about your mental health in terms of your self-esteem, your self-confidence, and basic wellbeing, which sort of drives me to become more isolated.
Another said:
for me, it was that serious fear of – God my teeth are looking really crap, and in the past they’ve [dental practitioners] asked, “Hey, you’ve missed this spot; what’s happening?”. How do I explain to them, hey, I’ve had some really shitty stuff happening and I have a very serious episode of depression?
What can we do?
Another of our recent studies focused on improving oral health awareness and behaviours among young adults experiencing mental health difficulties. We found a brief online oral health education program improved participants’ oral health knowledge and attitudes.
Improving oral health can result in improved mental wellbeing, self-esteem and quality of life. But achieving this isn’t always easy.
It’s crucial the health system takes a holistic approach to caring for people experiencing serious mental illness. That means we have mental health staff who ask questions about oral health, and dental practitioners who are trained to manage the unique oral health needs of people with serious mental illness.
It also means increasing government funding for oral health services – promotion, prevention and improved interdisciplinary care. This includes better collaboration between oral health, mental health, and peer and informal support sectors.
Amanda Wheeler is an investigator on a MetroSouth Health 2025 grant exploring use of Queensland Emergency Departments for people with mental ill-health seeking acute care for oral health problems.
Steve Kisely has received a grant on oral health from Metro South Research Foundation and one from the Medical Research Future Fund.
Bonnie Clough, Caroline Victoria Robertson, and Santosh Tadakamadla 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.
People with poor mental health face many challenges. One that’s perhaps lesser known is that they’re more likely than the overall population to have poor oral health.
Research has shown people with serious mental illness are four times more likely than the general population to have gum disease. They’re nearly three times more likely to have lost all their teeth due to problems such as gum disease and tooth decay.
People living with schizophrenia have, on average, eight more teeth that are decayed, missing or filled than the general population.
So why does this link exist? And what can we do to address the problem?
Why is this a problem?
Oral health problems are expensive to fix and can make it hard for people to eat, socialise, work or even just smile.
What’s more, dental issues can land people in hospital. Our research shows dental conditions are the third most common reason for preventable hospital admissions among people with serious mental illness.
Meanwhile, poor oral health is linked with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and even cognitive problems. This is because the bacteria associated with gum diseases can cause inflammation throughout the body, which affects other systems in the body.
Why are mental health and oral health linked?
Poor mental and oral health share common risk factors. Social factors such as isolation, unemployment and housing insecurity can worsen both oral and mental health.
For example, unemployment increases the risk of oral disease. This can be due to financial difficulties, reduced access to oral health care, or potential changes to diet and hygiene practices.
It’s clear the relationship between oral health and mental health goes both ways. Dental disease can reduce self-esteem and increase psychological distress. Meanwhile, symptoms of mental health conditions, such as low motivation, can make engaging in good oral health practices, including brushing, flossing, and visiting the dentist, more difficult.
And like many people, those with serious mental illness can experience significant anxiety about going to the dentist. They may also have experienced trauma in the past, which can make visiting a dental clinic a frightening experience.
Separately, poor oral health can be made worse by some medications for mental health conditions. Certain medications can interfere with saliva production, reducing the protective barrier that covers the teeth. Some may also increase sugar cravings, which heightens the risk of tooth decay.
In a recent study, we interviewed young people with mental illness. Our findings show the significant personal costs of dental disease among people with mental illness, and highlight the relationship between oral and mental health.
Smiling is one of our best ways to communicate, but we found people with serious mental illness were sometimes embarrassed and ashamed to smile due to poor oral health.
One participant told us:
[poor oral health is] not only [about] the physical aspects of restricting how you eat, but it’s also about your mental health in terms of your self-esteem, your self-confidence, and basic wellbeing, which sort of drives me to become more isolated.
Another said:
for me, it was that serious fear of – God my teeth are looking really crap, and in the past they’ve [dental practitioners] asked, “Hey, you’ve missed this spot; what’s happening?”. How do I explain to them, hey, I’ve had some really shitty stuff happening and I have a very serious episode of depression?
What can we do?
Another of our recent studies focused on improving oral health awareness and behaviours among young adults experiencing mental health difficulties. We found a brief online oral health education program improved participants’ oral health knowledge and attitudes.
Improving oral health can result in improved mental wellbeing, self-esteem and quality of life. But achieving this isn’t always easy.
It’s crucial the health system takes a holistic approach to caring for people experiencing serious mental illness. That means we have mental health staff who ask questions about oral health, and dental practitioners who are trained to manage the unique oral health needs of people with serious mental illness.
It also means increasing government funding for oral health services – promotion, prevention and improved interdisciplinary care. This includes better collaboration between oral health, mental health, and peer and informal support sectors.
Amanda Wheeler is an investigator on a MetroSouth Health 2025 grant exploring use of Queensland Emergency Departments for people with mental ill-health seeking acute care for oral health problems.
Steve Kisely has received a grant on oral health from Metro South Research Foundation and one from the Medical Research Future Fund.
Bonnie Clough, Caroline Victoria Robertson, and Santosh Tadakamadla 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.
Since then the body has attracted considerable criticism, overshadowing a solid, if slow, start to a whole new anti-corruption system across federal government.
Established with strong powers after a history of much weaker proposals, what has it achieved in its first two years?
Early hurdles
On its first day, the decision to livestream the opening ceremony showed the Commission was alive to public expectations.
However, the Commission’s reputation faced major early challenges: fears its transparency had been “nobbled”, and its damaging initial decision not to investigate officials referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission.
The first challenge flowed from the politics that birthed the Commission.
In 2022, despite otherwise state-of-the-art powers, the Albanese government made a late decision to insert an “exceptional circumstances” test to its ability to hold public hearings in corruption investigations.
The shift created a bad impression. Many voices, including cross-bench parliamentarians, were left with good reason to question the very institution they helped create.
The problem will haunt the NACC until the unnecessary threshold is removed.
Public recognition
In reality, the NACC still has hefty public hearing powers, but they are as yet to be used.
When the need arises for royal commission-scale transparency, it will deliver an important side benefit the NACC still badly needs: public visibility.
The challenge is confirmed by research on public trust, yet to be published, by Griffith University. Surveyed in March this year, only 12% of respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the NACC, while a third had never heard of it at all, or didn’t know.
This contrasts with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, now 37 years old and the country’s heaviest user of public hearings. Over a quarter (26%) of NSW respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the ICAC.
Building visibility is a slow road, and does not mean the NACC is not doing its job. But with recognition a cornerstone of confidence, it’s a key tool the Commission clearly still needs to learn how to use.
Workload
In fact, the NACC’s heavy pipeline of work is finally starting to give it more to talk about.
About 4,500 corruption complaints or referrals have been assessed since 1 July 2023, leading to more then 40 full investigations, including 31 currently underway.
It will take time for this workload to pay off, in dealing with and preventing corruption, as well as reinforcing the public trust everyone needs. But even if slow, the first results confirm the importance of the investment.
This week, the Commission published its fourth investigation report, revealing details of serious corrupt conduct by a Department of Home Affairs Senior Executive who abused her office by dishonestly advantaging her sister’s fiance for a job.
Small fry? Maybe to some. But the fact 15 of the current investigations relate to senior officials takes the fight against nepotism and cronyism right to where it needs to be.
Before the NACC, there was little confidence in how this kind of soft corruption was being dealt with by federal agencies.
Hard corruption
In its first two years, the NACC has also monitored 40 internal investigations by agencies which previously would have gone unsupervised, if they happened at all.
On harder corruption, some results tell an even stronger tale.
Last year, the NACC finalised an investigation which saw a former Australian Taxation Office employee jailed for five years, for accepting A$150,000 in bribes to reduce the tax debts of a Sydney businessman – also since jailed.
And in December, a former Western Sydney Airport manager pleaded guilty to soliciting a A$200,000 bribe in exchange for a A$5 million services contract at Badgery’s Creek.
Prior to the NACC, this was exactly the type of hard corruption many federal politicians and public servants claimed did not occur. No-one believed it, but now there’s a system for getting it under control.
Politicians not immune
The fact 13 of the NACC’s current investigations relate to former or current federal politicians or their staff is also reassuring. Of all the public officials in Australia, they have long been the most immune from integrity oversight.
Known referrals include former Liberal Minister Stuart Robert in relation to alledged improper financial dealings with Canberra lobbyist, Synergy 360.
A separate review found $374 million in contracts linked to Robert and the firm were poor value for money or plagued with perceived conflicts of interest.
Even if Robert’s denials are correct, the NACC has good scope to help ensure no such dealings are possible in the future.
The NACC’s strategic priorities highlight “senior public official decision-making” as an area where “even the perception of corruption can significantly harm trust in government”. This is especially important given the lack of regulation covering contractor, consultant and departmental relationships.
Robodebt setback
Tackling such fundamental issues, and not just driving a hamster wheel of criminal investigations, is the big challenge. It is underscored by the worst hurdle confronted by the NACC: its initial refusal to investigate Robodebt.
The NACC’s independent inspector, Gail Furness, found that decision was contaminated by a badly managed conflict of interest, which caused the Commission reputational damage.
But the poor handling also provided the circuit breaker needed for an independent reconsideration.
Since February, the NACC is now investigating whether six individuals referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission engaged in corrupt conduct.
It is a chance for the Commission to show it’s more than a compliance-focused enforcement agency, and is ready to play a positive part ensuring accountability and justice for victims when officials abuse their power.
The larger mission
Accepting this larger mission is a challenge for all anti-corruption commissions, but the NACC’s ability to do so is aided by some special powers.
Its broad definition of “corrupt conduct” means it can tackle any kind of serious integrity failure, including breaches of trust or abuses of power, which don’t involve the types of private gain often associated with corruption in the past.
A second key tool – also the likely solution to its visibility problem – is the Commission’s unique power to tackle larger issues through public inquiries.
Also yet to be used, this power extends to any “corruption risks and vulnerabilities” or “measures to prevent corruption” the Commission sees fit. Unlike individual investigation hearings, it does not require “exceptional circumstances”.
The last two years have seen the NACC well and truly blooded in its role as the cornerstone of the federal integrity transformation we needed to have.
Now the question is more about the Commission’s choices of direction, including how it nurtures its relationship with the public, than whether it has capacity to get the job done.
A J Brown AM is Chair of Transparency International Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council and all Australian governments for research on public interest whistleblowing, integrity and anti-corruption reform through partners including Australia’s federal and state Ombudsmen and other regulatory agencies, parliaments, state anti-corruption agencies, and private sector industry bodies. He currently leads an ARC Discovery Project on mapping and harnessing public trust and distrust, in partnership with Sydney, La Trobe and Bond Universities. He is a former senior investigator for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Expert Panel on Whistleblowing and is a member of the Queensland Public Sector Governance Council.
Australian farms are at the forefront of a wave of technological change coming to agriculture. Over the past decade, more than US$200 billion (A$305 billion) has been invested globally into the likes of pollination robots, smart soil sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to help make decisions.
What do the people working the land make of it all? We interviewed dozens of Australian farmers about AI and digital technology, and found they had a sophisticated understanding of their own needs and how technology might help – as well as a wariness of tech companies’ utopian promises.
These names all gesture towards a future in which the relationship between humans, computing and nature have been significantly reconfigured. Perhaps remote sensing technology will monitor ever more of a farm system, autonomous vehicles will patrol it, and AI will predict crop growth or cattle weight gain.
But there’s another story to tell about the way technological change happens. It involves people and communities creating their own future, their own sense of important change from the past.
AI, country style
Our research team conducted more than 35 interviews with farmers, specifically livestock producers, from across Australia.
The dominant themes of their responses were captured in two pithy quotes: “shit in, shit out” and “more automation, less features”.
“Shit in, shit out” is an earthier version of the “garbage in, garbage out” adage in computer science. If the data going into a model is unreliable or overly abstract, then the outputs will be shaped by those errors.
This captured a real concern for many farmers. They didn’t feel they could trust new technologies if they didn’t understand what knowledge and information they had been built with.
A different kind of automation
On the other hand, “more automation, less features” is what farmers want: technologies that may not have a lot of bells and whistles, but can reliably take a task off their hands.
Australian farmers have a ready appetite for labour-saving technologies. When human bodies are scarce, as they often are in rural Australia, machines are created to fill the void.
Windmills, wire fences, and even the iconic Australian sheepdog have been a crucial part of the technological narrative of settler colonial farming. These things are not “autonomous” in the same way as computer-powered vehicles and drones, but they offer similar advantages to farmers.
What these classic farm technologies have in common is a simplicity that derives from a clarity of purpose. They are the opposite of the “everything apps” that fuel the dreams of many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.
“More automation, less features” is in this sense a farmer envisaging a digital product that fits with their image of a useful technology: transparent in its operations, and a reliable replacement for or an addition to human labour.
The lesson of the Suzuki Sierra Stockman
When speaking with one farmer about favoured technologies of her lifetime, she mentioned the Suzuki Sierra Stockman. These small, no-frills, four-wheel-drive vehicles became something of an icon on Australian sheep and cattle farms through the 1970s, ‘80s and ’90s.
By the 1990s, the Suzuki Sierra Stockman had an iconic status among Australian farmers. Turbo_J / Flickr
Reflecting on her memories of first using the vehicle, the farmer said:
Once I learnt that I could actually draft cattle out with the Suzuki, that changed everything. You could do exactly what you did on a horse with a vehicle.
It seems unlikely that Suzuki’s engineers in Japan envisaged their little jeep chasing cattle in the paddocks of Central West of NSW. The Suzuki was in a sense remade by farmers who found innovative uses for it.
Future technology must be simple, adaptable and reliable
The combustion engine was a key technological change on farms in the 20th century. Computers may play a similar role in the 21st.
We are perhaps yet to see a digital product as iconic as wire fences, windmills, sheepdogs and the Suzuki Stockman. Computers are still largely technologies of the office, not the paddock.
However, this is changing as computers get smaller and are wired into water tanks, soil monitors and in-paddock scales. More data input from these sensors means AI systems have more scope to help farmers make decisions.
AI may well become a much-loved tool for farmers. But that journey to iconic status will depend as much on how farmers adapt the technology as on how the developers build it. And we can guess at what it will look like: simple, adaptable and reliable.
This article is based on research conducted by the Foragecaster project, led by AgriWebb and supported by funding from Food Agility CRC Ltd, funded under the Commonwealth Government CRC Program. The CRC Program supports industry-led collaborations between industry, researchers and the community. This project was also supported by funding from Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA).
Australian farms are at the forefront of a wave of technological change coming to agriculture. Over the past decade, more than US$200 billion (A$305 billion) has been invested globally into the likes of pollination robots, smart soil sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to help make decisions.
What do the people working the land make of it all? We interviewed dozens of Australian farmers about AI and digital technology, and found they had a sophisticated understanding of their own needs and how technology might help – as well as a wariness of tech companies’ utopian promises.
These names all gesture towards a future in which the relationship between humans, computing and nature have been significantly reconfigured. Perhaps remote sensing technology will monitor ever more of a farm system, autonomous vehicles will patrol it, and AI will predict crop growth or cattle weight gain.
But there’s another story to tell about the way technological change happens. It involves people and communities creating their own future, their own sense of important change from the past.
AI, country style
Our research team conducted more than 35 interviews with farmers, specifically livestock producers, from across Australia.
The dominant themes of their responses were captured in two pithy quotes: “shit in, shit out” and “more automation, less features”.
“Shit in, shit out” is an earthier version of the “garbage in, garbage out” adage in computer science. If the data going into a model is unreliable or overly abstract, then the outputs will be shaped by those errors.
This captured a real concern for many farmers. They didn’t feel they could trust new technologies if they didn’t understand what knowledge and information they had been built with.
A different kind of automation
On the other hand, “more automation, less features” is what farmers want: technologies that may not have a lot of bells and whistles, but can reliably take a task off their hands.
Australian farmers have a ready appetite for labour-saving technologies. When human bodies are scarce, as they often are in rural Australia, machines are created to fill the void.
Windmills, wire fences, and even the iconic Australian sheepdog have been a crucial part of the technological narrative of settler colonial farming. These things are not “autonomous” in the same way as computer-powered vehicles and drones, but they offer similar advantages to farmers.
What these classic farm technologies have in common is a simplicity that derives from a clarity of purpose. They are the opposite of the “everything apps” that fuel the dreams of many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.
“More automation, less features” is in this sense a farmer envisaging a digital product that fits with their image of a useful technology: transparent in its operations, and a reliable replacement for or an addition to human labour.
The lesson of the Suzuki Sierra Stockman
When speaking with one farmer about favoured technologies of her lifetime, she mentioned the Suzuki Sierra Stockman. These small, no-frills, four-wheel-drive vehicles became something of an icon on Australian sheep and cattle farms through the 1970s, ‘80s and ’90s.
By the 1990s, the Suzuki Sierra Stockman had an iconic status among Australian farmers. Turbo_J / Flickr
Reflecting on her memories of first using the vehicle, the farmer said:
Once I learnt that I could actually draft cattle out with the Suzuki, that changed everything. You could do exactly what you did on a horse with a vehicle.
It seems unlikely that Suzuki’s engineers in Japan envisaged their little jeep chasing cattle in the paddocks of Central West of NSW. The Suzuki was in a sense remade by farmers who found innovative uses for it.
Future technology must be simple, adaptable and reliable
The combustion engine was a key technological change on farms in the 20th century. Computers may play a similar role in the 21st.
We are perhaps yet to see a digital product as iconic as wire fences, windmills, sheepdogs and the Suzuki Stockman. Computers are still largely technologies of the office, not the paddock.
However, this is changing as computers get smaller and are wired into water tanks, soil monitors and in-paddock scales. More data input from these sensors means AI systems have more scope to help farmers make decisions.
AI may well become a much-loved tool for farmers. But that journey to iconic status will depend as much on how farmers adapt the technology as on how the developers build it. And we can guess at what it will look like: simple, adaptable and reliable.
This article is based on research conducted by the Foragecaster project, led by AgriWebb and supported by funding from Food Agility CRC Ltd, funded under the Commonwealth Government CRC Program. The CRC Program supports industry-led collaborations between industry, researchers and the community. This project was also supported by funding from Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA).
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Bui, Assistant Professor of Information and Digital Studies, University of Michigan
Yelp’s Black-owned tag was designed to help business owners like Don Studvent attract more customers. His restaurant closed in 2018 after nine years in business.AP Photo/Carlos Osorio
When the online review platform Yelp added a “Black-owned” tag in 2020, it boosted the visibility of Black-owned restaurants in Detroit. It also caused their ratings to drop, according to our recent study.
Both local and nonlocal reviewers who showed awareness of a restaurant’s Black ownership rated restaurants 3.03 stars on average. Those who did not acknowledge Black ownership gave a rating of 3.78 stars on average. The tag seems to have caused the average rating to drop by attracting more reviewers who were aware of Black ownership.
Why it matters
Technology companies often introduce new features and tools to influence user behavior and make their platforms more usable.
Although Yelp intended to support Black communities with the Black-owned tag, the design intervention was harmful to Black restaurant owners in Detroit because Yelp failed to consider platform and community-based factors that significantly shape user interactions.
Yelp’s user base is predominantly white, educated and affluent. Making Detroit’s Black-owned restaurants more visible to Yelp users may have amplified cross-cultural interactions and frictions. For example, non-Black users sometimes mentioned “slower” and “rude” service as justifications for lower ratings. Close readings of these reviews hinted at intercultural and communicative clashes.
Even if Black-owned restaurants businesses didn’t select the tag, they appeared in searches for “Black-owned restaurants,” in 2022 when we conducted the study and as recently as 2025. Businesses can remove the “Black-owned” tag, but Yelp doesn’t provide a way for them to opt out of search results.
How we did our work
To examine the local impacts of Yelp’s Black-owned tag, we collected over 250,000 Yelp reviews of Black- and non-Black-owned restaurants in Detroit and Los Angeles.
We identified Black-owned restaurants through community-sourced lists for Detroit and Los Angeles and then generated a random sample for the non-Black-owned restaurants.
We then identified reviews that explicitly noted “Black ownership” for closer analysis.
Detroit’s Black-owned businesses saw a greater loss in business compared with “ownership-unreported” restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they also potentially had more to gain from the new tag.
We found the awareness of Black ownership on Yelp significantly increased following Yelp’s addition of the Black-owned tag in June 2020. A year after the tag was added, reviews in Detroit mentioned Black ownership 4.3% more often than a year before it was rolled out.
Detroit Black-owned restaurants also saw a small temporary spike in their number of reviews, largely around the time Yelp added the Black-owned tag. At the same time, the restaurants’ average star ratings dropped from 3.91 to 3.88. In contrast, non-Black-owned restaurants’ ratings stayed relatively steady at 3.90.
This metric is an aggregate of all Detroit restaurants’ Yelp reviews over their entire existence, so a .03-star rating change is small but significant.
Adding obstacles in digital platforms serves to reproduce and amplify inequalities these businesses already face, rather than alleviate them. For example, Black-owned businesses have a harder time getting loans and are relatively underrepresented in Michigan as a whole.
These findings may seem surprising given that Detroit is a majority Black city. However, Black users on Yelp are a minority. Keeping in mind the skewed user base of Yelp, we hypothesize the lower reviews for businesses featuring a Black-owned tag reflect existing racial and digital divides in the city.
Generally, our study provides additional evidence that digital interventions are not “one-size-fits-all,” nor is digital visibility inherently positive for all businesses.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
_This article was updated to clarify how labels are added to profiles.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Matthew Bui does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Cameron Moy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met at the Pentagon with India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar to discuss the close cooperation between the two countries, weapons sales and the upcoming signing of the “Framework for the U.S.-India Major Defense Partnership in the 21st Century.”
A Concluding Statement describes the preliminary findings of IMF staff at the end of an official staff visit (or ‘mission’), in most cases to a member country. Missions are undertaken as part of regular (usually annual) consultations under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, in the context of a request to use IMF resources (borrow from the IMF), as part of discussions of staff monitored programs, or as part of other staff monitoring of economic developments.
The authorities have consented to the publication of this statement. The views expressed in this statement are those of the IMF staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF’s Executive Board. Based on the preliminary findings of this mission, staff will prepare a report that, subject to management approval, will be presented to the IMF Executive Board for discussion and decision.
Sarajevo:
Growth has proven resilient supported by expansionary fiscal policies, but inflation has picked up, and risks are elevated due to external shocks and domestic political tensions. Progress towards EU accession could boost confidence, but political hurdles persist. Fiscal policy should focus on restoring buffers and improving spending quality. The authorities shouldrefrain from further discretionary measures that widen the deficit and strengthen contingency planning. Both entities face large financing needs that are expected to be met through external borrowing, with a Eurobond issuance in FBiH and bilateral loans in the RS, along with some domestic issuances. The authorities should prepare contingency plans in case of financing shortfalls. Reforms, including a review of public employment, wages, and social benefits are needed to achieve a debt-stabilizing primary balance.
To safeguard monetary stability, it is essential to maintain the currency board and uphold the independence of the central bank. The authorities should continue to closely monitor financial sector risks and enhance crisis preparedness. The establishment of a country-wide financial stability fund, which would facilitate bank restructuring and provide liquidity on an exceptional basis, would substantially strengthen the financial safety net.To accelerate growth, the authorities need to speed up reforms to improve fiscal governance, protect financial integrity, fight corruption, and step up digitalization. Transitioning from coal to green energy along with preparing for the introduction of EU carbon taxes are major challenges ahead. Placing BiH on a higher growth path and providing its people with more opportunities will speed up income convergence with the EU and reduce emigration.
Recent developments and outlook
Despite a challenging environment, the economy has been resilient. Growth accelerated to 2.5 percent in 2024 from 2 percent in 2023, with strong domestic demand outweighing a decline in net exports. Household consumption was supported by strong growth in credit and remittances; private investment accelerated. The unemployment rate declined to 11.7 percent in Q4:2024, with real wages growing at an annual rate of 8 percent. The current account deficit widened to 4.0 percent of GDP in 2024 from 2¼ percent in 2023, reflecting a drought-induced decline in electricity exports, weaker demand for exports, and higher imports associated with strong domestic demand. Inflation fell to 1.7 percent in 2024 from 6¼ percent in 2023, owing to a slowdown in fuel and utilities prices. However, since end-2024, inflation has been rising again to 3.7 percent (yoy) in May, driven mainly by higher food prices.
The economic outlook remains uncertain amid elevated downside risks. Real GDP is projected to grow by 2.4 percent in 2025 supported by an improvement in net exports, a stronger fiscal impulse, and private consumption. However, the outlook is vulnerable to both domestic and external shocks. A worsening in geopolitical tensions and a resulting slowdown in Europe, or increased commodity price volatility could raise food and energy prices, lower BiH exports and remittances, and dampen domestic demand. An escalation of political tensions could further increase economic fragmentation and weigh on investor confidence and growth. In the absence of faster reform progress, medium-term growth is expected to remain around 3 percent—insufficient for rapid income convergence with the EU. Inflation is expected to remain elevated during 2025, and as food inflation eases, gradually decline from 2026, approaching the ECB target of 2 percent.
Fiscal policy and reforms
Fiscal performance in 2024 was stronger than expected. The general government deficit turned out to be 1¾ percent of GDP, the same as in 2023, but better than anticipated at the time of the 2024 AIV Consultation. The authorities leveraged a large increase in tax revenues to boost spending on wages, goods and services, social benefits, and public investments.
With fiscal policy expected to ease in 2025, the authorities should avoid further discretionary measures and strengthen contingency planning. Entity budgets and subsequently-adopted measures envisage increases in public wages and pensions, reflecting both legally-mandated indexation and discretionary changes. The widening deficit, which could reach 2.6 percent of GDP, is expected to be mainly financed mostly through foreign borrowing, as well as domestic banks. The authorities should avoid policies that further expand the deficit as this would likely put upward pressure on rising prices and widen external imbalances. Moreover, given mounting downside risks, the authorities should aim to build cash buffers and develop contingency plans. Depending on the severity of a potential shock the authorities should use the available buffers and activate contingency plans.
Over the medium term, the authorities are advised to place fiscal deficits on a firmly declining path starting from 2026, build fiscal buffers, and enhance the economy’s growth potential. Persistently high deficits risk placing public debt on an upward trajectory and may worsen financing terms. Fiscal consolidation should begin in 2026, with the goal of reducing the primary deficit to its debt-stabilizing level, while improving the quality of spending and rebuilding treasury balances. Priority should be given to spending measures that enhance efficiency—particularly by rationalizing the public wage bill through functional reviews and improving the targeting of social assistance programs. These measures should be complemented by revenue mobilization efforts, including broadening the tax base through the reduction of exemptions and development of new revenue sources, such as taxing dividends. Any fiscally costly policies should be strictly avoided or offset. Given significant infrastructure gaps, increasing both the level and quality of public investment should be a key objective.
Fiscal consolidation efforts should be accompanied by institutional and structural fiscal reforms. Strengthening fiscal discipline will require a review of existing fiscal rules to assess whether they are appropriately designed to meet macroeconomic management and developmental needs and whether there are sufficient institutional arrangements in place to ensure that they are met. The recent materialization of contingent liabilities related to international arbitration cases underscores the urgency of enhancing fiscal risk management. This includes timely identification of all sources of fiscal risks, assessment of risk magnitude and likelihood, development of mitigation strategies, and reinforcement of the institutional framework. In this context, improving the oversight and governance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is crucial. Reducing inefficiencies in public investment management remains a priority. This involves better project selection, rigorous appraisal processes, efficient and transparency procurement, and stronger portfolio management and oversight. Finally, implementing robust beneficiary registries would improve the targeting of social assistance programs by reducing inclusion and exclusion errors, improving efficiency, and enhancing transparency and accountability.
Currency board arrangement and financial sector policies and reforms
For three decades, the currency board arrangement (CBA) has been a cornerstone of macroeconomic stability and must be preserved. The CBA has ensured the stability of the domestic currency, while reinforcing policy credibility and fiscal discipline. Benefiting from strong institutional independence, the Central Bank (CBBH), has consistently maintained net foreign exchange reserves well above the level of its monetary liabilities. Safeguarding the CBBH’s independence is critical to preserving the credibility and effectiveness of the CBA.
The CBBH should further strengthen the reserve requirement framework. In line with IMF advice, the CBBH applies differentiated remuneration rates on reserve requirements for foreign and domestic currency liabilities. Falling euro area interest rates offer an opportunity to reduce the gap with CBBH remuneration rates on required reserves and the opportunity costs for holding reserves. A further comprehensive review of the reserve requirement framework, with technical assistance from the IMF, and implementation of previous recommendations would further strengthen the CBBH’s capacity to achieve its policy objectives.
Sustained strong credit growth calls for close monitoring of systemic risks and continued efforts to safeguard banking sector resilience. Credit expansion has been driven by rising wages, declining lending rates, and a booming real estate market. Despite this rapid growth, banks remain well capitalized, liquid, and profitable, while the share of non-performing loans continues to decline. Nonetheless, vigilance is warranted. The authorities should closely monitor financial sector developments and be prepared to deploy macroprudential tools to address risks from credit growth and rising real estate prices. Following introduction of additional capital buffers for systemic risk (SyRB) and domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs), the macroprudential toolkit should be expanded to include a countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) and borrower-based measures such as limits on loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and debt-service to income (DSTI) ratios. To preserve resilience, reducing the regulatory capital requirement from 12 to 10 percent as planned from end-2026 should be avoided. The authorities are also advised to avoid further extensions of temporary regulatory measures that aim to contain lending rate increases and to remove limits on bank exposures to foreign governments and central banks.
Progress made on coordination on financial sector issues, under the leadership of the CBBH, should be maintained. Regular financial sector coordination meetings strengthen inter-agency cooperation and help ensure smooth information exchange. Additionally, the authorities are encouraged to establish a country-wide Financial Stability Fund to support orderly bank resolution and to cooperate across state-level institutions and both entities to request a new IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP)—already requested by the CBBH—to comprehensively assess resilience and outline a roadmap for further reform, including in the context of EU accession.
We commend the CBBH and the other relevant authorities for their strong efforts to integrate BiH with the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). SEPA integration will enable faster and more convenient euro payments across borders within the SEPA area, lower transaction costs, and foster deeper trade and economic integration within Europe. It is crucial that the relevant legislative amendments are adopted in a timely manner to pave the way for the submission of the application for SEPA membership. In addition, the development of the TIPS Clone—the project implemented by the CBBH in cooperation with the Bank of Italy—will provide infrastructure for instant payments.
Structural reforms
Advancing toward EU membership will require a stronger, more coordinated, and results-driven approach. Persistent political fragmentation, lack of consensus among governing bodies, and limited administrative capacity continue to obstruct the adoption and execution of key reforms. In this context, timely adoption and implementation of the EU Growth Plan offers a valuable opportunity. Reforms under the growth plan will align BiH more closely with the EU single market, advance EU accession, and unlock €1 billion in additional financing over 2025–27 period.
The authorities should accelerate energy sector reforms to reduce fiscal risks and prepare for implementation of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Key reforms include phasing out electricity subsidies over the medium term—while protecting vulnerable households—and advancing efficiency improvements in energy SOEs. CBAM charges are set to take effect from 2026, with the largest anticipated impact on the BiH electricity sector. To mitigate this, it is essential to establish a domestic power exchange system and an agreed roadmap and legislative framework for introduction of carbon pricing at the state level. These steps would enable BiH to unlock new investment in renewable electricity generation, reducing the overall burden of CBAM. Implementation of carbon pricing will allow BiH to retain carbon-related revenues domestically and potentially secure a CBAM exemption for electricity exports to the EU.
Reforms that tackle the labor market, governance, and digitalization are also crucial. The authorities should take a structured approach to minimum wage increases that avoids high, frequent, and ad hoc adjustments. Complementary reforms are needed to address low labor market participation (particularly among women) and high youth unemployment. The authorities should urgently implement MONEYVAL priority actions to avoid being grey listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in early 2026. Grey listing could impose significant economic costs through reduced investment, delays in international payments, and increased transaction costs. Finally, developing digital identity and trust services, and providing government e-services, would strengthen the business environment.
* * * * *
The mission thanks the authorities and all other counterparts for their hospitality and for the constructive and insightful discussions in Sarajevo and Banja Luka.
Thousands more New Zealanders will get the procedures they need faster, with the Government today announcing 21,000 more elective procedures over the next year through its Elective Boost programme, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.
“With over 215,000 procedures set to go ahead over the next year – over 21,000 more than previously planned – wait times will reduce, helping more Kiwis access life-changing operations like hip and knee replacements and cataract surgeries sooner.
“Our Government is focused on real delivery. For patients stuck on surgical waitlists, that means getting their procedures faster, no matter where they live or who provides it.
“We’re making the health system work smarter, using both public hospitals and private providers in a coordinated national effort. New Zealanders don’t care who does the operation – they just want it done and done quickly.”
Many of the procedures will be delivered in Health New Zealand’s dedicated elective facilities, including Manukau Health Park, Tōtara Haumaru on the North Shore, and Burwood Hospital in Christchurch. Others will be completed by private hospitals under new national agreements.
The next phase of the Elective Boost follows strong early results:
More than 12,764 procedures delivered to 1 June, outpacing the 10,579 target set for 30 June.
The majority of procedures delivered have been for people waiting longer than four months for treatment.
Statements of work issued to 60 private providers to deliver surgery at consistent national rates.
“We’re taking a joined-up approach to procedure delivery. That means removing hold-ups, providing certainty, and unlocking capacity across the system,” Mr Brown says.
“This is how we start to fix the waitlist crisis that grew under the previous government. Too many Kiwis have been waiting in pain for procedures that could transform their lives – a tradie needing a shoulder operation to get back to work, a nana needing cataract surgery to see her grandkids clearly, or a child waiting months for tonsils to be removed. We’re turning that around.”
Mr Brown says the long-term goal is to treat 95 per cent of patients within four months by 2030 as part of the Government’s health targets.
“Our Government is investing $30 billion a year in health, and we’re backing that investment with a relentless focus on delivery. We are ramping up capacity in public hospitals, partnering with private providers in a more strategic way, and most importantly, we are getting Kiwis the care they need,” Mr Brown says.
“We’ve already delivered thousands of extra procedures through the Elective Boost, and now we’re building on that with thousands more to put patients first.”
Defendant previously convicted of robbing five banks across four separate cities and towns
BOSTON – A Quincy man has been arrested and charged in connection with the December 2024 armed robbery of a Santander Bank in Weymouth.
Glenn Legere, 46, of Quincy, was charged with one count of armed bank robbery. The defendant was arrested this morning and, following an initial appearance in federal court in Boston today, was ordered detained pending a hearing scheduled for July 8, 2025.
According to the charging document, at approximately 4:52 p.m. on Dec. 17, 2024, local law enforcement was dispatched to a Santander bank branch in Weymouth for a reported bank robbery. There, it is alleged that a bank teller told law enforcement that as employees were preparing to close the bank, a man wearing a sweatshirt, baseball hat, face covering and gloves entered the bank through the main entrance. It is alleged that the suspect approached the victim teller’s window, removed a black firearm from the front pocket of his sweatshirt, opened a black cloth bag and demanded all the money. As the bank teller handed the suspect money from the cash box, the suspect allegedly yelled words to the effect of “I need money,” “I want the money” and “I don’t play.” At various times, the suspect allegedly pointed the firearm directly at the victim teller. It is further alleged that the suspect ran towards other teller windows, gesturing d towards the cash box areas and demanding more money, but the victim teller explained that there was no more money and displayed an empty cash drawer. The suspect allegedly then left the bank with approximately $947 in stolen cash.
According to court documents, a subsequent review of surveillance video footage from nearby locations determined that the suspect drove to and from the robbery location in a silver or grey Jeep Grand Cherokee. A vehicle matching the description was captured on cameras in Quincy immediately before and after the robbery. It is alleged that the vehicle was registered to Legere.
Legere has multiple prior convictions for committing armed and unarmed robberies, including a 2011 conviction of armed robbery in Norfolk Superior Court for which he was sentenced to three to five years in state prison, as well as a 2010 conviction for armed and unarmed robbery of banks in Braintree, Hanover, Duxbury and Plymouth for which he was sentenced to three years in state prison.
As stated in open court at the defendant’s initial appearance today, when Legere was arrested, a firearm and some of the clothing believed to be used by Legere during the robbery were recovered.
The charge of armed bank robbery provides for a sentence of up to 25 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Ted E. Docks, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division; Colonel Geoffrey D. Noble, Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police; and Weymouth Police Chief Richard M. Fuller made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Massachusetts State Police, the National Insurance Crime Bureau and the Wellesley Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke A. Goldworm of the Major Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the charging document are allegations. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law.
BOSTON – A Michigan man was sentenced today in federal court in Boston for a conspiracy to import and sell illegal pharmaceuticals, including opioids, and to fund the operation of the scheme by fraudulently obtaining a COVID-19 pandemic relief loan.
Donald Nchamukong, 37, was sentenced by U.S. Senior District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton to two years in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised release. Nchamukong was also ordered to pay $200,000 in restitution. In March 2025, Nchamukong pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United States, committing loan fraud and distributing controlled substances.
Starting in 2019 and continuing to 2022, Nchamukong and co-conspirator, Doyal Kalita, conspired to distribute drugs to persons in the United States over the internet and using call centers in India. Nchamukong used shell companies, including a purported dietary supplements company and an auto parts supplier, and associated bank and merchant accounts to process sales of illegal foreign drugs, including the Schedule IV opioid, tramadol. Nchamukong and Kalita also received shipments of tramadol from India and reshipped the drug to customers across the United States, including in Massachusetts. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Nchamukong and Kalita fraudulently obtained a $200,000 Economic Injury Disaster Loan to fund their illegal drug scheme.
In June 2024, Kalita was sentenced to 10 years in prison for orchestrating the online drug distribution scheme, a technical support fraud scheme and related money laundering.
United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Ted E. Docks, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division; Thomas Demeo, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Boston Field Office; and Fernando P. McMillan, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by Homeland Security Investigations in New York, the Small Business Administration and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kriss Basil, Deputy Chief of the Securities, Financial & Cyber Fraud Unit prosecuted the case.
On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus and https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/combatingfraud.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline via the NCDF Web Complaint Form.
CONCORD – A Franklin man pleaded guilty today in federal court for making a threat in violation of federal law, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.
Brian Landry, age 69, pleaded guilty in federal court in Concord to one count of transmitting a threat in interstate communication. U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott scheduled Landry’s sentencing for October 2, 2025.
According to the charging documents and statements made in court, on May 17, 2023, Landry left a voicemail at U.S. Senator #1’s district office stating: “Hey stupid I’m a veteran sniper. And unless you change your ways, I got my scope pointed in your direction and I’m coming to get you. You’re a dead man walking you piece of f***ing sh*t.” Investigators identified the phone call as coming from a number associated with Landry. When they interviewed Landry, he admitted to having called the Senator’s office but did not initially recall exactly what he said in the voicemail.
The charge of conviction provides for a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, up to 3 years of supervised release, and a fine up to $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Capitol Police led the investigation. Valuable assistance was provided by the New Hampshire State Police, the Franklin Police Department, and the Manchester Police Departments. Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles L. Rombeau is prosecuting the case.
Source: United States Department of Justice (video statements)
Trial attorneys from the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), a part of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, explain how IER protects workers’ rights.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer won a vote on his welfare plans on Tuesday at significant political cost as he suffered the biggest parliamentary rebellion of his premiership and was forced to back down on key parts of the package.
After his lawmakers pushed him into a series of embarrassing U-turns to sharply scale back plans to cut benefits, lawmakers in the House of Commons gave their initial approval to a package of measures Starmer says are vital to securing the future of the welfare system.
But the scale of the rebellion – with 49 Labour lawmakers voting against the reforms – underlined the prime minister’s waning authority.
A year after winning one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British history, Starmer has seen his personal approval ratings collapse and been forced into several policy reversals by his increasingly rebellious lawmakers.
“It’s been a bumpy time tonight,” work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told reporters after a session of parliament when lawmakers took turns to mostly criticise the planned changes. “There are definitely lessons to learn from this process.”
Starmer came into office last year promising his big parliamentary majority would bring an end to the political chaos that defined much of the Conservative Party’s 14 years in power. But the revolt over the welfare bill underlines the difficulty he has pushing through unpopular changes.
In the run-up to the vote, ministers and party enforcers known as “whips” had been locked in frantic last-ditch lobbying of undecided members of parliament to try to win their backing.
In a further concession to rebels about two hours before the vote, the government said it would not finalise changes in eligibility for a key benefit payment until a review into the welfare system had been completed.
Paula Barker, a Labour member of parliament, called the attempt to pass the plans “the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen”.
In the end, the government suffered by far the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s premiership, eclipsing the 16 members of parliament who opposed an infrastructure bill earlier this month.
Mel Stride, the opposition Conservative Party finance policy chief, described Starmer’s team as “a government that’s lost control”, only able to pass the legislation by having “ripped the heart of it out”.
Labour lawmaker Henry Tufnell said by agreeing to the concessions Starmer had shown “he’s willing to take on board these criticisms that people have raised.”
Almost 90 disability and human rights groups before the vote urged lawmakers to vote down the legislation.
RISING COSTS
The proposed reforms are designed to reduce the cost of Britain’s growing welfare bill, which the government has described as economically indefensible and morally wrong.
Annual spending on incapacity and disability benefits already exceeds the country’s defence budget and is set to top 100 billion pounds ($137 billion) by 2030, according to official forecasts, up from 65 billion pounds now.
More than half of the rise in working-age disability claims since the COVID-19 pandemic relates to mental health conditions, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank.
The government had initially hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9 billion) a year by 2030 by tightening rules for people to receive disability and sickness benefits.
But after the government conceded to pressure from its lawmakers, it said the new rules would now apply only to future applicants, not to the millions of existing claimants as had been proposed. Analysts estimated the savings would likely be closer to 2 billion pounds.
It was not clear how the additional last-minute change would impact the hoped-for savings in the welfare reform package.
Opposition politicians said the government would now have to raise taxes or cut government spending elsewhere to balance the public finances in the annual budget later this year.
The government has said there would be no permanent increase in borrowing, but has declined to comment on possible tax rises.
While Starmer is under no immediate threat, and the next election is not expected until 2029, his party now trails behind Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK in opinion polls.
John Curtice, Britain’s most respected pollster, said this week that Starmer was the most unpopular elected prime minister in modern British history, and that voters still did not know what he stood for a year after he was elected.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate passed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). The OBBB includes key language authored by Sen. Cruz, including Trump Accounts, the No Tax on Tips Act, and two historic school choice initiatives.
Sen. Cruz said, “Today, we delivered on our promise to the American people to cut taxes, create jobs, support working Americans, and transformationally invest in our children.
“For over a decade, I have led the fight in the U.S. Senate for school choice. Today, the Senate passed my legislation to provide billions of dollars in K–12 scholarships for kids across the nation. This historic investment represents the largest federal school choice program ever passed.
“The OBBB also includes my No Tax on Tips Act to help waiters and waitresses, bartenders, taxi drivers, barbers, and hairdressers all across America. We also mandated the auction of 800 MHz of spectrum, which will enable us to beat China in the race to 6G—resulting in billions in new investments and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
“The Senate also passed my legislation creating Trump Accounts—personal investment accounts for every child in America—which will unleash the power of compound growth and create new generations of capitalists.
“I am also pleased to see the inclusion of our State Border Security Assistance Act, which is crucial for reimbursing the state of Texas for funds spent during the Biden administration’s illegal alien invasion.
“I strongly urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to put American families first and retain these vital provisions in the final version of the One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
WASHINGTON – Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., released the following statement upon the Senate’s passage of the reconcillation bill.
“The Senate-passed reconciliation bill is an investment in the future of the United States. Through this legislation, the Senate secured a down payment on a generational upgrade for our nation’s defense capabilities. Many of the key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will be cemented and expanded. This will stimulate the economy and benefit job creators across the country. Additionally, this legislation will help secure the southern border and unleash American energy production. I encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and deliver on the promises we made to the American people in November.”
Source: United States Senator for Maine Susan Collins
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins issued the following statement after her vote against passage of the Senate Reconciliation Bill:
“I strongly support extending the tax relief for families and small businesses. My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.
“The Medicaid program has been an important health care safety net for nearly 60 years that has helped people in difficult financial circumstances, including people with disabilities, children, seniors, and low-income families. Approximately 400,000 Mainers – nearly a third of the state’s population – depend on this program. Certainly, there are improvements that should be made to the Medicaid system. For example, I support work requirements for able-bodied adults who are not raising young children, who are not caregivers, or attending school. However, a dramatic reduction in future Medicaid funding, an estimated $5.9 billion in Maine over the next 10 years, could threaten not only Mainers’ access to health care, but also the very existence of several of our state’s rural hospitals.
“This bill has additional problems. The tax credits that energy entrepreneurs have relied on should have been gradually phased out so as not to waste the work that has already been put into these innovative new projects and prevent them from being completed. The bill should have also retained incentives for Maine families who choose to install heat pumps and residential solar panels.
“I am pleased that the bill contains a special fund that I proposed to provide some assistance to our rural hospitals, but it is not sufficient to offset the other changes in the Medicaid system. While I continue to support the tax relief I voted for in 2017, I could not support these Medicaid changes and other issues.”
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
July 01, 2025
Reporting revealed AI program delayed Social Security retirement claims processing by 25 percent
“We are concerned that SSA will make even bigger mistakes in incorporating AI into higher-risk tasks, particularly in roles that could jeopardize Americans’ financial security.”
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano, demanding answers on the reckless installation of artificial intelligence (AI) into SSA’s phone systems, which have blocked people from accessing their earned Social Security benefits—all while leaving Congress, advocates, and the American people in the dark.
“This lack of communication from your agency undermines its efforts to improve services by sowing chaos and confusion, which breeds distrust in the agency and its leadership,” wrote the senators.
SSA is rushing to incorporate a new AI tool into its national 1-800 number and the phone systems of 1,200 field offices—without having sought input from advocates, Congress, or the American people. SSA made this rash decision just a month after it was forced to abandon its fraud-detection AI chatbot, which slowed claims processing by 25%—and found that fraud is essentially non-existent.
The senators emphasized that the Trump administration failed to develop comprehensive AI policies and follow basic IT guidelines. Under previous SSA Commissioner O’Malley, the agency developed policies that would foster Americans’ trust in SSA’s use of AI.
“As the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the Social Security and SSI programs, we have a responsibility to ensure SSA pays the right benefit amount to the right person at the right time, provides the public with the level of customer service they expect, and is a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, including overseeing SSA’s development and adoption of emerging technology like AI,” concluded the senators.
To further understand how SSA will change its reckless actions of implementing AI systems without consultation, the senators requested answers to the following questions by July 18, 2025:
Please provide a detailed description of the new AI-based chatbot, including how it determines whether it has successfully answered a caller’s questions before hanging up?
What metrics is SSA using to determine whether this AI-based chatbot is successful at improving service delivery at the national 1-800 number?
What metrics did SSA use to evaluate the successes or challenges of this AI-based chatbot before rolling it out nationwide to field offices?
What stakeholders, especially those who represent beneficiaries and employees, were consulted pre- and post-deployment of this AI-based chatbot?
Is SSA planning to procure, develop, or implement any new AI systems this year? If so, please list and provide a detailed description of these AI systems, their expected implementation dates, how they are expected to improve service delivery, and what steps SSA will be taking to prevent disruptions to services during the transition.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla Statement Denouncing Senate Republicans’ Passage of Billionaire-First Tax Bill
WATCH: Padilla blasts President Trump’s “Big Ugly Bill” cutting health care and clean energy investments to provide tax cuts to billionaires
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement after Senate Republicans narrowly passed their billionaire-first budget reconciliation bill to gut critical programs, kick 17 million Americans off their health care, explode the debt by over $3.5 trillion, and skyrocket energy costs for Californians:
“Senate Republicans just voted to let President Trump and his billionaire buddies steal from working families in order to cut their own taxes by trillions of dollars.
“Americans are struggling to keep up with rising costs from Trump’s chaotic tariffs. Instead of trying to reduce costs, Senate Republicans have chosen to cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid, kicking 17 million people — including over 2.3 million Californians — off their health insurance. Their votes will cause rural hospitals across the country to close. They’re decimating SNAP nutrition assistance that parents count on to feed their children. And electricity bills will go up while our energy system becomes less reliable.
“One thing is clear: Republicans are voting for this bill knowing full well it will hurt their constituents, all in an effort to please Donald Trump and enrich the billionaire class.”
Overnight, Senator Padilla proposed an amendment to the reconciliation bill to force Republicans to make changes to ensure it would not increase the deficit. Republicans rejected the amendment, highlighting their complete hypocrisy on the national debt. Republicans’ Big Ugly Bill adds more to the debt than the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, American Rescue Plan Act, CARES Act, and CHIPS and Science Act combined — all to pay for yet another round of tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Padilla previously circulated a memorandum outlining Senate Republicans’ hypocritical violation of filibuster rules in order to exploit the expedited reconciliation process while hiding the true cost of their tax bill. Padilla also spoke on the Senate floor against the Republican budget resolution in April, and voted against advancing it in the Senate in both February and April. He condemned House Republicans’ passage of the reconciliation bill in May.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
ICYMI: Fox News Opinion: “JD Vance and Trump personify political theater. And we’re watching their biggest act yet”
Fox News Op-Ed
Padilla: “The Trump administration wants this spectacle. They want to distract from their failures, while giving them an excuse to push the boundaries of Trump’s power.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, published an op-ed on Fox News’ website where he slammed President Trump and Vice President Vance for creating a militarized spectacle and scapegoating immigrants to distract from their failed and unpopular policies, including their “Big Ugly Bill” that will add trillions to the federal deficit and kick tens of millions of Americans off their health care in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
Padilla emphasized that Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines draws them away from important core missions and puts them in an “impossible position” of being “political props.” He also warned about how Trump’s manufactured crisis in Los Angeles sets a dangerous precedent for presidents abusing the military for their own partisan goals, causing chaos to suppress Americans’ fundamental rights.
Key Excerpts:
“Last month, Vice President JD Vance visited Los Angeles. No, not to better coordinate with local law enforcement frustrated after the dangerous lack of communication coming from the Trump administration as they keep Marines and National Guardsmen in Los Angeles. Instead, the vice president came to escalate a crisis of President Trump’s own making and to disparage California’s elected officials.”
“The vice president, my former colleague and the current president of the U.S. Senate intentionally chose to call me ‘Jose’ instead of ‘Alex.’ He knows my name. But sadly, his behavior in June is indicative of a larger trend from this administration. In 2025, there is no one who personifies political theater better than JD Vance and Donald Trump. In fact, we’re in the middle of their biggest act yet — as they use service members and federal law enforcement in Los Angeles as props to justify their latest power grab. None of this is new.”
“It was no coincidence that at the lowest point of his presidency yet, Donald Trump turned to his break-glass-in-case-of-emergency option, federalizing and deploying 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles along with hundreds of Marines. The Trump administration wants this spectacle. They want to distract from their failures, while giving them an excuse to push the boundaries of Trump’s power.”
“This isn’t just about how the Trump administration treats blue states or immigrants. It’s about how they treat our military, too. Anyone who applauds President Trump’s militarization of Los Angeles is also applauding a politician tearing away our service members from critical missions any time the president begins to feel some political pressure. And applauding putting every Guardsman and Marine in an impossible position. No one enlists to become a political prop.”
“While you might not care to speak up today, imagine if a Democratic president returns to office and chooses to deploy our military to your state. It doesn’t matter that the overwhelming majority of protestors remain peaceful — one bad actor who chooses to exploit a protest to cause chaos, and the president could militarize your community, too.”
“In the end, this doesn’t come down to Republican versus Democrat, or Trump and Vance versus Los Angeles. It comes down to the basic question: do you believe that in America, an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on everyone’s rights? Or, if you’re like J.D. Vance, are you just here for the show?”
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in calling out the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles and Trump’s misguided deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. Padilla recently led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty servicemembers to American cities. He and Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla has spoken at a spotlight hearing and on the Senate floor multiple times to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. He also joined all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats last month in calling on Chairman Grassley to schedule Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem for a broad oversight hearing for testimony before the committee.
Full text of Senator Padilla’s Fox News op-ed is available here and below:
Fox News Digital: Sen Alex Padilla: JD Vance and Trump personify political theater. And we’re watching their biggest actyet
By U.S. Senator Alex Padilla
Last month, Vice President JD Vance visited Los Angeles.
No, not to better coordinate with local law enforcement frustrated after the dangerous lack of communication coming from the Trump administration as they keep Marines and National Guardsmen in Los Angeles.
Instead, the vice president came to escalate a crisis of President Trump’s own making and to disparage California’s elected officials.
How else would you describe the vice president’s conduct, when three days after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted the curfew downtown and protests were dissipating, he staged a press conference to attack state and local leaders, falsely claiming they had ‘decided to go to war against’ law enforcement.
That’s a far cry from lowering the political temperature. But for this administration, it’s standard operating procedure.
Yet, one thing the vice president said did surprise me. It came when one of his handpicked reporters lobbed yet another softball question, asking for his comment on the string of Democratic lawmakers — myself included — that the Trump administration has handcuffed for speaking out.
‘Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t the theater,’ he said, smirking. ‘That’s what this is: it’s pure political theater.’
Political theater. Huh.
The vice president, my former colleague and the current president of the U.S. Senate intentionally chose to call me ‘Jose’ instead of ‘Alex.’ He knows my name. But sadly, his behavior in June is indicative of a larger trend from this administration.
In 2025, there is no one who personifies political theater better than JD Vance and Donald Trump. In fact, we’re in the middle of their biggest act yet — as they use service members and federal law enforcement in Los Angeles as props to justify their latest power grab.
None of this is new.
Time and time again, when the Trump administration finds itself in hot water, it returns to the same tired playbook: pick a fight to distract people. Scapegoat immigrants. Threaten the use of force. Do whatever you can to create a spectacle and change the news cycle. And as it turns out, just a few short weeks ago, things were going terribly wrong for Donald Trump.
He was facing failures on nearly every front: failing to bring prices down or to secure a wave of trade deals despite his trade adviser’s promise to secure “90 deals in 90 days” Failing to quickly pass his “Big, Beautiful Bill” as allies and adversaries alike began to warn of the trillions of dollars it would add to the federal deficit. And perhaps most embarrassing of all, he was facing a messy public break-up with Elon Musk.
So no, it was no coincidence that at the lowest point of his presidency yet, Donald Trump turned to his break-glass-in-case-of-emergency option, federalizing and deploying 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles along with hundreds of Marines.
The Trump administration wants this spectacle. They want to distract from their failures, while giving them an excuse to push the boundaries of Trump’s power.
But this isn’t just about how the Trump administration treats blue states or immigrants. It’s about how they treat our military, too. Anyone who applauds President Trump’s militarization of Los Angeles is also applauding a politician tearing away our service members from critical missions any time the president begins to feel some political pressure. And applauding putting every Guardsman and Marine in an impossible position.
No one enlists to become a political prop.
But to Americans watching from home who still think this doesn’t concern them because they’re not a Californian, not an immigrant, not a Democrat, or not from a military family: think hard about what comes next.
The Trump administration has argued the president alone can deploy the military to put down protests over the wishes of the governor. Of the mayor. Even of local law enforcement.
While you might not care to speak up today, imagine if a Democratic president returns to office and chooses to deploy our military to your state. It doesn’t matter that the overwhelming majority of protestors remain peaceful — one bad actor who chooses to exploit a protest to cause chaos, and the president could militarize your community, too.
In the end, this doesn’t come down to Republican versus Democrat, or Trump and Vance versus Los Angeles. It comes down to the basic question: do you believe that in America, an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on everyone’s rights?
Or, if you’re like J.D. Vance, are you just here for the show?
Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
July 1, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate voted to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as part of the budget reconciliation process.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver for Nebraska,” said Ricketts. “This legislation will result in increased security, strength, and prosperity for the American people. The bill restores critical pro-growth business provisions and makes them permanent, benefitting Nebraska farming, ranching, and small business. Most of all, this is a win for families in Nebraska—creating a brighter future for our country.”
BACKGROUND:
This legislation is a win for Nebraska families:
Prevents a $2,443 tax hike on the average Nebraska family.
Protects over 44,000 family-owned farms in Nebraska from having their death tax exemption cut in half.
Ensures more than 239,000 Nebraska households’ child tax credit is not cut in half.
Makes sure more than 868,000 Nebraska families’ standard deduction is not cut in half.
Establishes community engagement requirements for able-bodied adults who are choosing not to work and do not have dependent children or elderly parents in their care.
ATLANTA – Governor Brian P. Kemp today nominated Frank O’Connell for appointment to the Chief Judge position of the newly-created Georgia Tax Court. The Court will bring improved efficiency in the adjudication of tax cases at the state level and was created by a constitutional amendment approved by Georgia voters during the November 2024 election. Pending his confirmation by the Georgia House and Senate Judiciary committees, O’Connell’s four-year term as Chief tax court judge will begin on April 1, 2026.
“Georgia taxpayers deserve leadership at the Department of Revenue that recognizes who they are most accountable to and as commissioner, Frank O’Connell has never forgotten that – serving the people of our state with honor and great work ethic,” said Governor Brian Kemp. “That’s why I’m again asking Frank to serve in a leadership position that will benefit the entire state. Marty and I are confident that with his skills and expertise, he will bring the same level of dedication to this new role.”
“Georgia’s fiscal stability and success is a testament of the great leadership from public servants like Frank O’Connell,” said Lt. Governor Burt Jones. “Commisisoner O’Connell has led the Department of Revenue well and I believe he will continue to be a great leader for Georgia in this new role. I look forward to working with him and seeing his expertise positively impact Georgia’s tax court.”
“Frank O’Connell has served the hardworking taxpayers of our state with integrity and dedication for over two decades,” said House Speaker Jon Burns. “Like our colleagues in the Senate, we look forward to confirming his appointment as Chief Judge of the Georgia Tax Court.”
Frank M. O’Connell currently serves as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Revenue, following his appointment by Governor Kemp to that role in February 2023. O’Connell previously served as Deputy Commissioner and as General Counsel for the Georgia Department of Revenue. He began his 21 years of service with the State of Georgia in the Department of Revenue’s Compliance Division and transferred to what is now the Office of General Counsel as Assistant Director before his appointment as General Counsel.
In his previous role as Deputy Commissioner, O’Connell was responsible for the Tax Operations divisions of Audits, Taxpayer Services, Compliance, and Processing, and the External Operations divisions of Motor Vehicle Tag & Title, Alcohol & Tobacco Regulation, Local Government Services, and Special Investigations. In his role as General Counsel where O’Connell spent most of his DOR career, he oversaw the drafting of legislative bills for the Department’s annual legislative package, the drafting of all DOR tax, alcohol & tobacco, and motor vehicle regulations, and advised the Department on agency contracts, Open Records Act responses, and the application of confidentiality laws protecting taxpayer data.
Prior to joining the Georgia Department of Revenue in 2003, Mr. O’Connell consulted in state and local taxation for ten years at two “Big Four” accounting firms. A member of the Tax Section of the State Bar of Georgia, Mr. O’Connell received his law degree from the University of Notre Dame and his LL.M. in Taxation from New York University.
O’Connell resides in East Cobb with his wife, Shelia.
A federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, returned an indictment on June 11, unsealed yesterday, charging four family members with conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing tax returns that sought millions of dollars in false refunds.
The following is according to the indictment: beginning in 2016, David Hunt, of Arlington, Texas, his twin sons Brandon Hunt and Baylon Hunt, also of Arlington, and Brandon and Baylon’s half-brother Corey Burt, of Mississippi, allegedly conspired to file false tax returns in the name of purported trusts that sought over $8.5 million in tax refunds that the trusts were not entitled to receive. Brandon Hunt also filed a false return in his own name. Collectively, the defendants allegedly received over $1 million from the IRS based on those false tax returns.
Brandon and Baylon Hunt also allegedly submitted additional fake documents to the IRS as part of their scheme, including falsified financial instruments and altered money orders. The indictment further alleges that they shared in the proceeds of their fraud by transferring money between themselves. The defendants also allegedly used the refunds to purchase luxury goods, cryptocurrency, and real estate.
Each defendant was charged with conspiracy as well as aiding and assisting in the preparation of tax returns. If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for each count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return. The defendants also face a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Larson of the Northern District of Texas made the announcement.
IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind and Daniel Lipkowitz of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Weybrecht for the Northern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
A federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, returned an indictment on June 11, unsealed yesterday, charging four family members with conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing tax returns that sought millions of dollars in false refunds.
The following is according to the indictment: beginning in 2016, David Hunt, of Arlington, Texas, his twin sons Brandon Hunt and Baylon Hunt, also of Arlington, and Brandon and Baylon’s half-brother Corey Burt, of Mississippi, allegedly conspired to file false tax returns in the name of purported trusts that sought over $8.5 million in tax refunds that the trusts were not entitled to receive. Brandon Hunt also filed a false return in his own name. Collectively, the defendants allegedly received over $1 million from the IRS based on those false tax returns.
Brandon and Baylon Hunt also allegedly submitted additional fake documents to the IRS as part of their scheme, including falsified financial instruments and altered money orders. The indictment further alleges that they shared in the proceeds of their fraud by transferring money between themselves. The defendants also allegedly used the refunds to purchase luxury goods, cryptocurrency, and real estate.
Each defendant was charged with conspiracy as well as aiding and assisting in the preparation of tax returns. If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for each count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return. The defendants also face a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Larson of the Northern District of Texas made the announcement.
IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind and Daniel Lipkowitz of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Weybrecht for the Northern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
