Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI Australia: TV interview, ABC Afternoon Briefing with Patricia Karvelas

    Source: Australian Government – Minister of Foreign Affairs

    Patricia Karvelas, Host: Minister, welcome to the program.

    Penny Wong, Foreign Minister: Good to be with you, PK.

    Karvelas: Some breaking news, Minister, this afternoon – commercial pilots we are reporting, have been warned of a potential hazard in airspace between Australia and New Zealand, where three Chinese warships are conducting military exercises. Do you have any information to share regarding what is happening here?

    Foreign Minister: This is a Chinese task group that the Deputy Prime Minister has previously spoken about. We are aware of this task group. We are monitoring this task group very closely. It is, as I understand it, operating in international waters. We will be discussing this with the Chinese and we already have at officials’ level, in relation to the notice given and the transparency that is being provided in relation to these exercises, particularly the live fire exercises.

    Karvelas: Can you tell us why Airservices are telling commercial pilots not to fly over the area?

    Foreign Minister: Well, obviously this is an evolving situation, but it would be normal practice where a task group is engaging in exercises for there to be advice given to vessels and aircraft in the area, and Airservices is doing what it should do, which is to give that advice.

    Karvelas: And is there a fear of live fire and how that may affect these commercial flights? Is that, just for our viewers who perhaps don’t understand how these military exercises work, is that what would be exercising the minds of Airservices Australia?

    Foreign Minister: Well, obviously, as I said, this is an evolving situation, but I can talk to you about what the practice is. The practice is that countries, including Australia and others, can conduct military exercises in international waters. The advice to me is that this is what China is doing. When they do conduct those exercises, obviously notice is provided to ensure – that is available to anyone in the area, and that is what Airservices is doing. We do have concerns about the transparency associated with this and the notice, and I certainly will be having a discussion with Foreign Minister Wang about that.

    Karvelas: What will you raise with the Foreign Minister when you meet?

    Foreign Minister: There are many issues that I regularly raise in bilaterals with Foreign Minister Wang. You would anticipate I will cover those, and I will be very clear with him about some of the issues you and I have spoken about, PK.

    Karvelas: Will you press the Foreign Minister and Chinese officials to be more transparent about what this naval task force is doing and also where it is going?

    Foreign Minister: What I would say is that China is operating in international waters, just as Australia and other countries operate in international waters. We always express that all countries should comply with the UN Convention are the Law of the Sea – and that is what we will always be articulating to China and to all others who utilise the maritime commons.

    Karvelas: Some analysts have called this a deliberate show of force by China, which wants to demonstrate it can now easily project power into the Tasman, the South Pacific. Is that a fair assessment?

    Foreign Minister: I think that is a commentary piece that you probably should speak to a commentator about. As the Foreign Minister, what I need to articulate is Australia’s interest and Australia’s interests are in transparency and the observance of international law including the law of the sea. That is what we always articulate, for example, in relation to the South China Sea.

    Karvelas: New Zealand’s Defence Minister, Judith Collins, says the task force is a wake-up call for her country and should remind its citizens their geographical isolation no longer offers protection. Does that apply to Australia as well? Are you concerned that our geographic location also doesn’t protect us and that we need to actually be more aware of this threat?

    Foreign Minister: Well, they’re your words, not mine. What I would say is the government is very clear about the importance of Australia having the strategic and military capability to enable both deterrence and assurance. And you’ve seen, whether it’s through AUKUS or the work that Minister Marles has done, the importance the Government places on making sure the Australian Defence Force is appropriately equipped to enable deterrence. And why do we want deterrence? Because that is central to stability. You need both deterrence and assurance to enable and promote stability and peace in the region.

    Karvelas: Minister, in terms of Airservices and their diversion of commercial planes, how long should we expect this will go on for? Is that something you will seek clarity for, from the Chinese?

    Foreign Minister: Well, I don’t have any advice about that, but that is ultimately a matter for Airservices to determine, the notice they need to give to vessels and aircraft.

    Karvelas: I want to change the topic if I can, Minister, to another foreign issue that has been of course, huge, and there is an anniversary coming up, which makes it very pivotal, I think. President Trump has referred to Zelenskyy as a dictator. Does that language alarm you?

    Foreign Minister: Well, I don’t believe he is. What I’ve said very clearly for many years now, is Russia is the aggressor here. Russia is engaged in an illegal and immoral war against Ukraine, contravened the UN Charter as a permanent member of the Security Council, used its veto to protect itself so it could continue to conduct this war. 

    We stand very firmly in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I had the opportunity to briefly meet President Zelenskyy when I was in Poland recently, and I made very clear to him that we, the people of Australia, the country of Australia, continues to stand with him and the people of Ukraine in their struggle for their sovereignty. 

    Karvelas: Minister, are you concerned that the US is refusing to co-sponsor a draft UN resolution that demands Russia withdraw its troops?

    Foreign Minister: Well, the US can make its decisions, and it can articulate the reasons for it, what I will say to you is what our position is, and I’ve outlined it.

    Karvelas: Yesterday I spoke to former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and he told me we can’t assume we can rely on America anymore, that this is quite a dramatic shift in geopolitical positioning. Is that right? We can’t rely on America anymore?

    Foreign Minister: America has been Australia’s principal strategic partner and strategic ally for many decades, and that alliance has stood the test of time, and it has stood the test of political change. It’s an alliance which has been, and a relationship, which has been fostered by and carried by administrations and governments of both political persuasions. 

    It is the case that President Trump is charting a very different course – and he said he would, and we should expect that – but we should also have some confidence in our capacity to navigate that. I was very pleased to and honoured to be the first Australian Foreign Minister to be invited to a presidential inauguration. I was very pleased to have the opportunity so early on in the Trump Administration to engage with my counterpart, Secretary Marco Rubio, and also National Security Advisor Waltz. Deputy Prime Minister Marles has also been and engaged with his counterpart. So, this is a very deep relationship. It’s a relationship where there is a lot of engagement, and it’s a relationship which is important to both countries. 

    Karvelas: I understand that the Russian Foreign Minister is also attending the meeting of Foreign Ministers, where you are. Have you spoken to him and raised the issue in relation to Oscar Jenkins?

    Foreign Minister: As you know, Patricia, we have discontinued engagement, or halted engagement with Russian officials at senior levels since the invasion of Ukraine. I did, however, make an exception for that yesterday, because I wanted to express very clearly to Mr Lavrov the importance of Oscar Jenkins’ condition. I expressed to him the importance we associate with Mr Jenkins being treated appropriately, and Russia complying with its international legal obligations. 

    Karvelas: And what response did you get? I mean, are you getting any opening in terms of what we might be able to do to get Oscar Jenkins back?

    Foreign Minister: Well, obviously I’m not going to disclose more than is in Mr Jenkins’ interest, but I can say to you very clearly that Mr Lavrov understood that our view was that Mr Jenkins needed to be treated appropriately and Russia needed to comply with its international legal obligations.

    Karvelas: Did you shirtfront him?

    Foreign Minister: Well, I think that’s a Tony Abbott term. I spoke to him, as you would expect, I would speak to him on such a matter.

    Karvelas: OK, you used the Penny Wong method, I understand. 

    Just finally, Minister, I understand, before I let you go, on Israel, are you concerned over the behaviour exhibited by Hamas, parading the bodies of these dead hostages, and are worried about one of the bodies was incorrectly returned – it is obviously incredibly, a very difficult time, especially the implications for the ceasefire?

    Foreign Minister: First, I condemn unequivocally the way in which Hamas dealt with this. It was a sickening and cruel way to deal with the return of these two young children, the bodies of two young children. So, I would just express my condolences and sympathy to the families. 

    In relation to the ceasefire, we obviously continue, as so many countries do around the world, to urge all parties to comply with the ceasefire, including the return of hostages.

    Karvelas: Foreign Minister, thank you so much for joining us.

    Foreign Minister: Good to speak with you, Patricia.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Fixed communication services revenue in Malaysia to grow at 1.8% CAGR during 2024-2029, forecasts GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    Fixed communication services revenue in Malaysia to grow at 1.8% CAGR during 2024-2029, forecasts GlobalData

    Posted in Technology

    The fixed communication services revenue in Malaysia is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.8% from $1.9 billion in 2024 to $2.1 billion in 2029. This growth will be driven by the increasing demand for fixed broadband, particularly fiber-optic services, while fixed voice services are expected to decline due to the shift towards mobile and OTT communications. Telekom Malaysia is set to remain a leader in both segments, reveals GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

    GlobalData’s research reveals that the fixed voice service revenue will decline at a CAGR of 8.9% over 2024-2029 owing to consumer shift from traditional telephony to mobile/over-the-top (OTT) based communication services and the subsequent decline in voice service average revenue per user (ARPU) levels.

    Fixed broadband service revenue, on the other hand, will increase at a CAGR of 4.4% during 2024-2029, driven by the growing adoption of higher ARPU fibre-optic (FTTH/B) services.

    Pradeepthi Kantipudi, Telecom Analyst at GlobalData, says: “Fiber lines accounted for more than 97% share of the total fixed broadband lines in 2024 and will remain the leading broadband technology through 2029. This growth in fiber lines will be driven by the growing demand for high-speed broadband connectivity and efforts by the government and telecom operators to upgrade and expand fiber broadband infrastructure in the country.”

    Telekom Malaysia will lead both fixed voice and fixed broadband segments by subscriber share through 2029. The telco’s leading position in the fixed broadband segment is driven by its strong presence in the FTTH/B service segment and continued focus on fibre network expansions. For instance, Telekom Malaysia in partnership with government and under the 12th Malaysia Plan, aims to deploy 4,370 fiber-optic network hubs in the country by the end of 2025 with majority of them to be installed in rural areas to bring better and faster internet connectivity to homes. This project is expected to further boost digital connectivity and economic development for Malaysia.

    Kantipudi concludes: “As fixed voice services continue to decline, the expansion of fiber infrastructure will play a pivotal role in supporting economic growth and bridging the digital divide, particularly in underserved rural areas.”

    Information based on GlobalData’s Malaysia Fixed Communication Forecast (Q4 2024), which quantifies current and future demand and spending on fixed voice and data services. The data is published quarterly.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI: Bitget Wallet Integrates Aave to Expand Onchain Stablecoin Staking

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VICTORIA, Seychelles, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitget Wallet, a leading Web3 non-custodial wallet, has integrated with Aave, one of the largest decentralized lending protocols, to offer a secure onchain staking solution for USDT and USDC stablecoins with 5% APY. This integration lowers the entry barrier for users, allowing them to earn stable returns with minimal effort while maintaining full self-custody of their assets.

    Users can now stake USDT and USDC on Bitget Wallet across Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism chains with an annual percentage yield (APY) of 5%. Bitget Wallet’s intuitive interface provides a real-time display of daily earnings, allowing users to flexibly manage their funds and withdraw assets at any time. To further incentivize participation, Bitget Wallet is launching a limited-time stablecoin staking event. From February 18 at 16:00 to March 4 at 16:00 (UTC+8), users who stake a minimum of $10 USDT or USDC via Bitget Wallet will have the opportunity to share a $7,000 worth of BGB reward.

    As more users seek decentralized alternatives to traditional finance, Bitget Wallet is reinforcing its role as the gateway to secure and transparent stablecoin yield generation. By leveraging Aave’s deep liquidity and efficient lending infrastructure, Bitget Wallet enables users to seamlessly stake stablecoins with optimized yields, eliminating the complexities often associated with decentralized finance. In addition to stablecoin staking, Bitget Wallet supports multi-chain staking of Ethereum, Solana, TON and more, providing diversified passive income opportunities.

    By enabling self-custodial staking across multiple networks, Bitget Wallet ensures greater security, accessibility, and financial independence for its users. “Our goal is to simplify on-chain earning opportunities while ensuring users maintain full control over their assets,” said Alvin Kan, COO of Bitget Wallet. “By supporting multi-chain staking, we are making decentralized finance more accessible, stable, and rewarding for users worldwide.”

    Learn more on the Bitget Wallet blog.

    About Bitget Wallet
    Bitget Wallet is the home of Web3, uniting endless possibilities in one non-custodial wallet. With over 60 million users, it offers comprehensive onchain services, including asset management, instant swaps, rewards, staking, trading tools, live market data, a DApp browser, an NFT marketplace and crypto payment. Supporting over 100 blockchains, 20,000+ DApps, and 500,000+ tokens, Bitget Wallet enables seamless multi-chain trading across hundreds of DEXs and cross-chain bridges, along with a $300+ million protection fund to ensure safety of users’ assets. Experience Bitget Wallet Lite to start a Web3 journey.

    For more information, visit: X | Telegram | Instagram | YouTube | LinkedIn | TikTok | Discord | Facebook

    For media inquiries, please contact media.web3@bitget.com

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/7978bc97-af34-4747-aa96-9151862bf107

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Asian Development Blog: Unintended Consequences: Managing the Surprising Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfers

    Source: Asia Development Bank

    Conditional cash transfers provide immediate financial relief while fostering long-term investments in education and health, helping to break the cycle of poverty. Research reveals both intended and unintended effects that policymakers and project designers should consider.

    Conditional cash transfers are direct cash payments to people in need. They are designed to reduce poverty by providing cash transfers to households that fulfill specific conditions. These criteria often revolve around education, such as school attendance, or health, such as prenatal checkups. 

    By alleviating people’s short-term budget constraints while at the same time incentivizing long-term investments in human capital, these cash payments aim to break the cycle of poverty.

    The dual approach of immediate financial relief and long-term human capital investment has made conditional cash transfers widely popular. Early programs, starting in the late 1990s, were implemented in Latin America, with PROGRESA in Mexico and Bolsa Familia in Brazil being notable examples. 

    Since then, conditional cash transfers have seen widespread adoption globally, often as flagship anti-poverty programs supported by international development finance institutions. In Asia and the Pacific, Indonesia’s Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) is a prominent example of a large-scale program.

    Conditional cash transfers are among the most closely studied anti-poverty programs due to their clear objectives, measurable goals, and widespread adoption. Large-scale programs are often informed by small-scale, rigorously measured pilots, which assess the impacts on recipients’ health and educational outcomes before being adopted at national scale. 

    Systematic reviews of existing studies generally find mixed to positive impacts on both short-term and long-term outcomes, further contributing to the popularity of conditional cash transfers.

    As new programs continue to be introduced and existing ones run for decades, the associated research grows. Beyond the intended impacts, new data sources and the realization that development policies can have multiple effects have led to a new strain of research. 

    Cash transfers, especially those with behavioral conditions, influence recipients’ actions in expected and unexpected ways, leading to both positive and negative outcomes. Research along these lines sheds light on their broader impact beyond the intended effects.

    Maximizing the benefits of conditional cash transfers requires understanding both their intended and unintended effects, ensuring that program design is evidence-based and adapted to local contexts.

    Given the expense of anti-poverty programs, findings on positive spillover effects can help to justify them, while negative impacts can inform necessary adjustments. 

    One prominent positive externality observed is the reduction in crime rates, especially in Latin America. As children are increasingly sent to school due to conditional cash transfer requirements, studies have found that gang violence decreases.

    These programs make skipping school to engage in violence more costly because recipient households risk losing their cash transfer payments if they don’t fulfill the program’s conditionalities.

    Similarly, the programs have been found to decrease child labor and reduce the prevalence of child marriages in rural areas. These are unintended effects, that is, impacts beyond the traditional theory of change of conditional cash transfer programs.

    These examples display how there are potential benefits beyond initial project design. 

    However, negative effects induced by conditional cash transfers have also been observed. One notable example is when parents pay more attention to the child that is targeted by the conditionality of the cash transfer program than their other children who are not targeted. 

    While school-aged children may feel pressured from increased attention and the need to perform well, older children can also suffer from parental neglect.  Another example is the mistargeting of conditional cash transfers, which can produce resentment and other problems in communities. 

    Although this issue is not specific to conditional cash transfers, the effect can be magnified because these are often flagship poverty programs.

    What can we make of these findings? It is crucial to acknowledge that these results can be highly context-specific. In some cases, side effects such as crime vary by region. 

    That said, awareness of potential externalities can help foster positive examples, while tweaking program design can contribute to mitigating negative ones.

    Given the importance of context-specificity, conditional cash transfer interventions should be carefully adapted to the local setting. This approach can help design interventions that avoid negative side effects and inform policy making at an earlier stage.

    Understanding a broader set of changes that a policy brings about can also inform cost-benefit analysis, helping to determine which intervention is best suited to achieve set objectives most efficiently in light of scarce resources. 

    A practical starting point is implementing pilot programs that test for both the intended and potential unintended effects of conditional cash transfers on a small scale. This ensures that scale-up decisions are evidence-based and consider outcomes beyond the primary objectives. 

    Maximizing the benefits of conditional cash transfers requires understanding both their intended and unintended effects. Evidence-based program design can enhance positive outcomes while minimizing risks, ensuring these interventions are both effective and equitable.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: King to Senate Colleagues: “We’ve Got to Wake Up [and] Protect this Institution”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    To watch the floor speech click here
    WASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) today spoke on the Senate floor to share his growing concerns over the Trump Administration’s largely unconstitutional and unprecedented overreach – sharing the usurpation of Congressional Authority that has now reached the constitutionally-directed ‘power of the purse.’  In the speech, King also shared the detrimental impacts of reckless, indiscriminate government cuts on critical federal functions like management of the national parks and care for our veterans:
    The news is coming so hard and fast these days, that it’s hard to sort it all out. Every day seems to be something new that captures our attention, our concern, our interest. And what I’d like to do today is try to put some of it in perspective and what’s going on in our governing of this country. I don’t believe what I’m going to be talking about today is partisan. It should not be partisan because what I’m really talking about is competent government and constitutional government.  Really two categories — competent government and constitutional government. That should not be a controversial issue. Neither of those are something that we should be arguing about. It’s what we have a responsibility to carry through in terms of our jobs here in the U.S. Senate. So the two categories I want to talk about — my headings are thoughtless and dangerous. 
    First I want to talk about thoughtless. The hiring freeze. A hiring freeze can be an effective tool if it’s used thoughtfully and systematically. But to do it across the board without a process for exceptions that’s built into it, you end up with all kinds of unintended and negative consequences. Firefighters, parks, losses elsewhere by attrition. There should be a systematic exemption process. Now it’s haphazard and random. Park seasonal employees first were under the hiring freeze, now they’re not. It’s sort of like, oh, oh, or, we’re going to be okay without park seasonal employees. VA frontline health workers were at first subject to the hiring freeze then people said, oh, no, we didn’t mean doctors and nurses, so that’s okay. You can hire them. My point is it’s not a rational process. It’s ready, fire, aim. Literally, ready, fire, aim is what we’re talking about and people aren’t doing this in a thoughtful and systematic way. And, by the way, the difference between frontline deliverers of care at the V.A. and the people who answer the phone who are categorized as bureaucrats, I don’t think there’s a stark difference there. If you’re a veteran and are seeking care and an appointment at a V.A. health facility and nobody answers the phone, that’s a denial of benefits. That’s a denial of benefits, just as if they close the door in your face. That’s what we’re talking about, is weakening the systems that are serving our public. 
    The hiring freeze, it’s possible to do a hiring freeze. When I was governor of Maine, I instituted a hiring freeze, but we did it in a systematic and thoughtful way. We had a process for dealing with exemptions and without destroying the morale and throwing the entire operation of government into chaos. And, by the way, why do we have the government? To serve the people. To serve the people. 
    So let’s talk about the next step: the firings. The famous fork in the road letter is a perfect example of a thoughtless way to approach a problem. The letter went to everybody. The letter wasn’t selective. It went to everybody — all civilians in the CIA, in the National Security Agency, in the Defense Department. Also, of course, all the other civilian agencies. But it wasn’t targeted in a way. If you want to leave federal service, we’ll pay you through September, but it hit everybody. Again, it’s not a rational or thoughtful way to trim the federal workforce. You should be talking about where are we do we have too many people, do we have overstock in terms of public servants and where do we need more, for example. But instead it went to everybody. By definition, that’s not a rational process. Firing — let me just put this in perspective, by the way. On the fork in the road letter, the estimate is as of today 75,000 people have taken that option and left. And I suppose the people who are behind this think that’s a great victory. The dollars saved from those 75,000 people represent one tenth of one percent of the federal budget. So people out who are seeing, we’re cutting the budget, we’re cutting, we’re saving, we’re saving the taxpayers money. One tenth of one percent. Given the chaos and the uncertainty and the deletion of services to our American people, I would argue that’s not worth it. One tenth of one percent. Everyone got these letters. People are being fired now in the CIA, FBI, the V.A., and on this letter, what if only the best people take the option to leave? Then you’ve really shot yourself in the foot. You’ve encouraged people who were going to retire anyway or who could get a better job in the private sector. So it’s an anti-intelligent way to handle this. 
    And then you got situations like at the Department of Energy, the first weekend they fired 350 people in the National Nuclear Security Administration, the people who handle nuclear materials and are responsible for our nuclear stockpile. They fired I think it was something like 20% of the personnel. Three or four days later, they realized, uh oh that was a mistake. A good, solid, thoughtful process wouldn’t have made a mistake like that. They would have realized from the outset that these are jobs that we aren’t going to be firing, we aren’t going to be eliminating. It seemed to be based on some kind of quota. I don’t know what it is. And then — okay, now we’re seeing everybody being fired who’s on probation. Probationary people, people who work for the government for less than a year or two. Okay, again that’s arbitrary — that’s arbitrary. Being on probation doesn’t mean you’re an effective or not an effective employee. You could be one of the best employees in the whole federal government and you just came on and yet you’re going to be fired. It has nothing to do with the productivity or skill of the worker. It has nothing to do with the importance of the position. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the agency in question, serving the people of Maine. If you’re probationary, you’re gone. Here’s another thing about probation. It turns out in the federal government, if you’re promoted, you’re on probation in the new position. You may have worked in the department for five or ten years. You’re on probation. You’re fired. Even though you have five or ten years of experience. And people did get these ridiculous letters saying your performance has not been adequate. There was no basis for those letters. It was arbitrary. And that’s remember I said my categories are thoughtless and dangerous. This is thoughtless — probation. 
    Oh, by the way, about 30% of the federal workforce are veterans. Now, we don’t know the exact figures. That’s one of the problems. We have no transparency about what’s going on here and who’s actually being let go and who isn’t, but a reasonable extrapolation is, 30% of the people being fired are veterans. People who put their lives on the line for this country. And then they went into public service and they’re being fired. That’s outrageous. Again, was no one thinking about this? A thousand people were fired at the V.A. Just a couple of days ago. We learned that people supporting the V.A. crisis line were fired. What genius thought that was a good idea? Last Friday, immigration judges were fired. We’re talking about immigration and border and control of immigration, and we’re firing immigration judges? What possible sense does that make? Here’s one. We’ve had — I think three curious aircraft incidents in the last month, and they just fired I think 300 people at the FAA. Great, including people who are in the business of maintaining the systems that keep our airplanes safe. In the wake of three serious airplane crashes, including one here in Washington that killed 67 people, we’re firing people at the FAA? Give me a break! What kind of sense does that make? What kind of service is that to the people of the United States? Here’s one that’s not life or death, but the National Park Service. 1,000 people were fired last weekend at the National Park Service. I suspect they were probationary, that means okay they’d only been there a year or to. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t in jobs that were important. The headline in this morning’s paper, chaos at the national parks. The lines are twice as long. If there’s chaos at the national parks in February, lord knows what it’s going to be in June or July. In Yosemite, in Acadia in my state of Maine. And here’s a beauty, some of these people that are be fired are people who collect fees at the park. So to save a buck, we’re going to lose $5 from fees not being collected. Genius. Come on. Five percent of the workforce at the national park service are being fired, and I can tell you, I’m the co-chair of the National Park Subcommittee, the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, we need more people at the national parks, not less. We’ve had a staffing shortage going back half a dozen or ten years where visitation is way up and staff is flat or declining. Now it’s really declining. And this is a direct hands-on experience for the American people. Gettysburg — they’ve been laying off people at the battlefield. Last night apparently something called the Presidential Management Fellowship Program, a training program that’s decades’ old that brings talented people into the federal government, eliminated. No explanation, no rational. Eliminated. 
    Okay, that’s the thoughtless part. Let me give you a little personal experience. When I was elected governor of Maine, we had a serious deficit. We were in the middle of a recession. We went through a process very similar to the impetus for what’s going on now. We looked at the entire workforce of the state of Maine. But we did it in a thoughtful and transparent way. We developed a task force that included private citizens, legislators, and members of the administration, and we took eight months, Mr. President, eight months, not eight weeks, and we looked at the entire structure of the state of Maine government and reduced our workforce by about 10%, a significant reduction. But we did it in a thoughtful way and in a way that made sense in terms of the ongoing service to the people of Maine. 
    So it can be done, and I’m not unsympathetic with the idea of making things more efficient. And even possibly downsizing the government where it’s called for and where additional people aren’t necessary. So, I’m not here to say we shouldn’t be looking for efficiency and saying everything in the federal government is perfect. I don’t believe that for a minute. But I think if we’re going to take on this exercise, it ought to be done in a sensible way by people who know what they’re doing. 
    And that brings me to DOGE. I don’t know what they’re doing. Nobody does. I don’t know who these 25-year-olds in the IRS, rummaging around in the IRS I.T. System. We learned the last couple days Social Security. What are they doing? Who are they? What are their qualifications? Do they have security clearances? Do they have conflicts of interest? All of the rules designed to protect us from people making arbitrary decisions that aren’t accountable, you talk about bureaucrats being unaccountable, these are the ultimate unaccountable people. We don’t know what their relationship is to the federal government, what authority they have, up what law they’re operating. It’s clear from mistakes like firing 350 people at the Nuclear Security Agency, they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re firing people who we need. Okay, that’s the thoughtless part. It’s inexcusable. That’s just pure efficiency of government of doing the right thing, and it can be done, but these people aren’t doing it. 
    The second part of what’s going on is the dangerous part, and this is where I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are standing by and watching our government be attacked with no response. Elimination of entire congressionally created agencies. USAID was established by statute and over a weekend these people fired everybody, closed the agency, took the name off the door, and threw the rest of the world into chaos, where these people were working on important projects all over the world, that were part of our outreach to the world. You know what? As soon as we went out of business at A.I.D., China is right in the market. It’s like walking away from engagement with the world. It couldn’t be a more self-defeating piece of work. By the way, it’s a tiny part of the federal budget. And James Mattis famously said, when he was a general, if you cut the foreign aid budget, you’re going to have to buy me more bullets. Foreign aid is part of the national security of this country, and to demolish this agency without any input from congress, without any relationship to the Foreign Affairs Committee or anybody else up here in the congress, is grossly unconstitutional. It’s grossly unconstitutional. 
    Here’s the problem, Mr. President, this isn’t just a battle between the Senate and the House and the President and they’re fighting about powers. No, the reason the framers designed our Constitution the way they did was that they were afraid of concentrated power. They had just fought a brutal eight-year war with a king. They didn’t want a king. They wanted a constitutional republic, where power was divided between the Congress and the President and the courts, and we are collapsing that structure. And the structure wasn’t there for fun. It wasn’t, hey, we’ll design this complicated system. It was there to protect our freedom. Because the people that wrote our Constitution understood human nature, and they understood a very important thousand-year-old principle — power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    The whole idea was to divide power, and to the extent we allow this assault on our Constitution, this collapsing and excessive power being granted to the executive to ignore the laws passed by congress, and by the way, appropriations bills are laws passed by congress, which the administration is also ignoring by freezing funding for programs authorized and funded by congress, to the extent we do that, we’re not only making a mistake now, but we’re altering the essential structure of our Constitution that’s there for a reason, that’s there to protect our freedom. And the people cheering this on I fear, in a reasonably short period of time, are going to say where did this go? How did this happen? How did we make our president into a monarch? How did this happen? How it happened is we gave it up! James Madison thought we would fight for our power, but no. Right now, we’re just sitting back and watching it happen. Article 2 of the Constitution, the President said, oh, article 2 gives me a lot of power. No, it doesn’t. It makes the president commander in chief. That’s true. Here’s the key sentence in Article 2 of the constitution, which defines the president’s power, the key sentence is not the power of the president, the responsibility of the president is to take care that the laws being faithfully executed. Not write the laws. Not deny the laws. Not ignore the laws. Not pick which laws he or she To take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That’s the responsibility of the President. 
    Right now, those laws are being ignored. Impoundment. Impoundment. The President trying to say Congress appropriated this money through appropriation bill signed by president, but I’m not going to spend it because I don’t like it, I don’t like that purpose, whatever it is. I’m sorry. It’s absolutely straight up unconstitutional, and it’s illegal. President Nixon tried to do that in 1973, and the Congress, virtually unanimously, passed the impoundment control act which said no, presidents can’t do that. They can’t ignore the will of congress because Article 1 of the Constitution gives the congress the power of the purse. We’re giving it away this week. We’re standing by and watching it, watching the essential power of this body evaporate. Not evaporate, migrate down the street to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 
    The power was divided for a reason. There’s criticism in the press saying people are talking about a constitutional crisis, they’re crying wolf. This is a constitutional crisis. It’s the most serious assault on our Constitution in the history of this country. It’s the most serious assault on the very structure of our Constitution, which is designed to protect our freedoms and liberty, in the history of this country. It is a constitutional crisis, and I’ll tell you what makes it worse, the President and the Vice President are already hinting that they’re not going to obey decisions of the courts. Many of my friends in this body say it will be hard, we don’t want to buck the President, we’ll let the courts take care of it. Number one, that’s a copout. It’s our responsibility to protect the Constitution. That’s what we swear to when we enter this body. To stand back and say we’re going to watch all this happen, and the courts will take care of it, that’s an abdication of our responsibility. 
    If you look at history, yes, it’s true, presidents have gained power. In my reading of history usually it wasn’t because presidents usurped power, but the congress abdicated it. We haven’t declared war, for example, since 1942, yet that’s a clear responsibility of congress and we sure have been in some scrapes since 1942. We’ve abdicated that power, and we’re now in the process of abdicating the power to control the appropriations process. I mention about DOGE, no authority, no accountability, no transparency, we literally don’t know what they’re doing, we can’t find out what they’re doing. Just this week, the destruction of the independent agencies, created by congress. They were created as independent agencies for a reason, because they didn’t want them to be dominated by the vicissitudes of politics. The president gets to appoint members of the board, and they’re very carefully balanced, not firing someone at the National Labor Relations Board so there’s no quorum so they can’t act. That’s a direct violation of congressionally established policy. These independent agencies were created for a reason. Again, oh, I forgot to mention, illegal firing of inspector generals. The Senator from Iowa is a champion of inspector generals. In the first few days, something like 18 inspector generals were fired, completely contrary to the law. The law is the congress must be given 30 days’ notice of the firing of an inspector general, and reasons therefore. Not done! Not a peep. 
    What’s it going to take for us to wake up, when I say us, I mean this entire body, to wake up to what’s going on here? Is it going to be too late? Is it going to be when the President has secreted all this power and the congress is an afterthought? What’s it going to take? The offenses keep piling up. As I said, leaving it to the courts, number one, is a copout, and number two, when the Vice President said something, I can’t remember exactly what he said, but ‘the courts should not have the power to do this.’ Of course, the President over the weekend famously quoted Napoleon, ‘when you’re saving your country, you don’t have to obey any law.’ Wow, a President of the United States quoting Napoleon about not having to obey the law. 
    So, I intended to talk about Ukraine, but Senator Tillis and Senator Shaheen did it so articulately, I think I’ll let that pass, except to say it’s shameful we’ve suddenly pivoted from the support of a democracy that was grossly and illegally invaded, from the support of that country to the support of a murderous dictator. I heard something about Zelenskyy is a dictator. The only dictator in this game, Mr. President, is Vladimir Putin. He’s the dictator. To argue that somehow Ukraine started the war? What universe is that — is somebody in that would say something like that? Again, I won’t pursue, but I can tell you Putin’s happy, XI Jinping is happy, Iran is happy, North Korea is happy. They love what’s going on, to see us retreating from the world, whether it’s A.I.D. or Ukraine. They love to see us retreating from the world, looking weak and looking unreliable. 
    Finally, on this point, we seem to be systematically alienating our allies. I’ve been on Armed Services for 12 years and have learned that the key asymmetric advantage this country has in the world is allies. China has customers. We have allies. Well, we’re giving that away. If I wasn’t on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I’d use a slightly different term, but we’re giving away our asymmetric advantage in the world by what looks like systematically alienating allies, whether it’s threats of tariffs or speeches in Europe telling them what their problems are, basically saying we’re going to abandon Europe. What a great idea, abandon Europe at a time there’s a murderous dictator with his eyes on the Baltics, Poland, and said he would like to reestablish the Soviet Empire. The worst possible geopolitical thing we could do would be to abandon Ukraine.
    So, Mr. President, this is a constitutional crisis, and we’ve got to respond to it. I’m just waiting for this whole body to stand up and say no, no, we don’t do it this way. We don’t do it this way. We do things constitutionally. Yes, it’s more cumbersome, it’s slower, that’s what the framers intended. They didn’t intend to have an efficient dictatorship, and that’s what we’re headed for. Mr. President, this is a very dangerous moment. We’ve got to wake up, protect this institution, but much more importantly protect the people of the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. President. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Operation Lavender: Police acknowledge sentencing over meth concealed in beer cans

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Aiden Sagala sat down for a beer after a hard day’s work nearly two years ago.

    No one could have imagined the horrific series of events that would follow for Aiden and his family.

    Twenty-one-year-old Aiden had unwittingly consumed liquid methamphetamine, disguised as a can of Honey House Beer, and died on 7 March 2023.

    Auckland City Police initiated Operation Lavender to investigate Aiden’s tragic death and the wider shipment of methamphetamine.

    Today, Detective Inspector Glenn Baldwin acknowledges the sentences handed down in the Auckland High Court for the two men charged in the investigation.

    Himatjit Singh Kahlon, 42, has been sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years,  for manslaughter and possession for supply of methamphetamine.

    Another man, who has permanent name suppression, has been sentenced to 22 years imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, for multiple drugs offences including possession for supply of methamphetamine and importing methamphetamine.

    Ultimately, the investigation seized 747 kilograms of methamphetamine largely stored in a Manukau warehouse.

    It was the largest ever single seizure of methamphetamine in this country.

    Detective Inspector Baldwin says: “In usual circumstances, this would have been a significant haul dealing a blow to the criminal groups dealing in its supply.

    “However, it was not lost of any on us that there has been a tragedy at the heart of this investigation.

    “I acknowledge the tenacious investigators who worked on Operation Lavender, bringing these two men to justice.

    “I’d also like to acknowledge the assistance of Customs in this investigation.”

    Police extend sympathies to Aiden’s family and friends for their loss.

    “No matter the outcome today, Aiden’s family have had a bright young man taken away from them far too soon,” Detective Inspector Baldwin says.

    “I would like to acknowledge their strength throughout this process.”

    Methamphetamine continues to cause heartache in communities right across this country.

    “Those concealing illicit drugs in food and beverage products play a dangerous game in their sole drive to make money, and in this case a young man has lost his life.”

    Detective Inspector Baldwin says Police along with partner agencies continue to strike against criminal groups involved in the importation and distribution of illicit drugs into New Zealand.

    ENDS. 

    Jarred Williamson/NZ Police

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Baldwin to Trump: Hold China Accountable for Decades of Cheating American Workers and Shipbuilders

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) led a group of her colleagues in calling on President Donald Trump to hold China accountable for cheating trade laws to gain an unfair advantage in the shipbuilding industry. In the final days of the Biden Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released a report Senator Baldwin pushed for that confirmed China has used unfair trade practices to undercut American shipbuilding. Now, Senator Baldwin is pushing the Trump Administration to take immediate action to level the playing field for American workers, businesses, and national security.

    “To stand up for the hardworking Americans employed in the shipbuilding industry, those who serve in the military branches that need these vessels, and those who live in communities supported by these jobs, we must act quickly to hold China accountable and reverse the decimation of our maritime strength and capacity inflicted over the last two decades,” wrote Senator Baldwin and the lawmakers in a letter to President Trump. “As we strive to grow the American economy, compete with the PRC, strengthen our ability to engage in international commerce and ensure the American military has the resources necessary to succeed, we urge your Administration to take action regarding the PRC’s actions in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors.”

    In March of 2024, Senator Baldwin called on the Biden Administration to fight China’s unfair trade practices, leading her colleagues in support of the United Steelworkers’ (USW) effort to have then-USTR Katherine Tai initiate a full investigation into China’s maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. The USTR launched an investigation last year, and the report released last month found that China targeted the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance, concluding that the PRC’s targeted dominance in these sectors is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and is therefore “actionable” under Section 301. 

    The report lays out China’s efforts to target the shipbuilding and maritime industry for dominance – using state-sponsored financial support to elevate their own industry, imposing barriers for foreign firms, and stealing intellectual property to give China’s shipbuilding and maritime industry an advantage. According to the report, China also severely and artificially suppressed labor costs in the maritime, shipbuilding, and logistics sectors, undercutting American workers.

    In her letter to President Trump today, Senator Baldwin called on this administration to act on the results of the investigation that has confirmed China’s unfair trading practices are undercutting American shipbuilding and workers and undermining our economic and national security. Over the last 20 years, the United States has lost industrial shipbuilding capacity while China’s subsidized shipbuilding has only grown. State-owned enterprises and other facilities in China are now capable of producing over 1,000 ocean-going vessels a year, while the United States currently produces fewer than ten. While shipbuilding capacity, suppliers, and shipyards remain vital to the U.S. economy and national security, China’s uncompetitive trade practices have led to 25,000 domestic shipbuilding suppliers leaving the U.S. market over the past 20 years.

    Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John Fetterman (D-PA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) also signed the letter.

    A full version of this letter is available here and below.

    Dear Mr. Trump:

    We write to you about the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC)’s actions in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sector and urge you to act on the results of the investigation that has confirmed China’s unfair trading practices are undercutting American shipbuilding and workers and undermining our economic and national security.

    Last year, the United Steelworkers (USW) and other unions filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) responded by initiating an investigation and determined “China has largely achieved its dominance goals, severely disadvantaging U.S. companies, workers, and the U.S. economy generally through lessened competition and commercial opportunities and through the creation of economic security risks from dependencies and vulnerabilities.” USTR found that China’s unfair trade practices in maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding are “actionable,” and we therefore urge your Administration to identify and implement appropriate relief measures and partner with Congress as needed. Enacting strong measures to address the PRC’s actions will be a critical step towards promoting our domestic industrial base, growing America’s economy, creating good-paying jobs in these important sectors, and protecting our national security.

    After World War II, the United States led the world in commercial shipbuilding. Over the last twenty years, the PRC has executed a comprehensive strategy to significantly diminish the shipbuilding industry in the United States and to become the dominant shipbuilding force globally. The PRC can now produce over 1,000 ships per year, while the United States only has the capacity to produce fewer than ten ocean-going vessels per year. America has lost 25,000 domestic shipbuilding suppliers over the last two decades. This drastic difference in capacity is a result of the PRC’s anti-competitive practices to gain an advantage in shipbuilding through unfair and discriminatory tactics, such as government subsidies and favorable loans from PRC-operated banks. According to USTR’s report, the non-market excess capacity in China’s steel sector significantly contributes to the price competitiveness of PRC-made vessels, and there are instances where Chinese steel intended for vessels in Chinese shipyards has been sold at a lower rate than Chinese steel intended for market economies. To give the American shipbuilding industry a more level playing field and the opportunity to grow, China’s harmful, market-distorting practices should be addressed immediately by this Administration.

    The PRC’s dominance in the shipbuilding industry has dire consequences for America’s economic security and national security. It is essential that the United States prioritizes scaling up our shipbuilding capacity, to both guard against the economic harms felt by loss of jobs at shipyards and suppliers, and because privately-owned shipyards provide essential help to build and maintain the Navy’s fleet. To allow the PRC to control the global transportation supply chain is to open the United States and our allies to immeasurable risks, from supply chain shortages to severe national security concerns. USTR’s report describes the dangers of the PRC’s Maritime Silk Road initiative, including a Chinese government-sponsored logistics platform, LOGINK. LOGINK is used in ports around the world and collects information that could easily be manipulated to disrupt supply chains, allow Chinese companies to reduce prices and undermine competitors, and provide details about the movement of sensitive equipment through commercial ports. The PRC cannot be allowed to continue to expand this intelligence network unchecked, or the United States will experience additional economic harm and threaten our  national security.

    Our states are home to companies that specialize in shipbuilding and repair for both the Navy and commercial vessels, as well as suppliers of necessary inputs to build ships. These businesses are significant employers in communities around the country and provide a pathway to the middle class. Retaining these companies and their workforce ensures the knowledge and ability to build vessels, both for military purposes and to transport goods across the world, remains made in America. A shipyard closing or reducing their number of employees, or a supplier shifting their operations overseas, means local economies lose good-paying, often union, jobs, and America takes another step back in the competition with the PRC. To stand up for the hardworking Americans employed in the shipbuilding industry, those who serve in the military branches that need these vessels, and those who live in communities supported by these jobs, we must act quickly to hold China accountable and reverse the decimation of our maritime strength and capacity inflicted over the last two decades.

    As we strive to grow the American economy, compete with the PRC, strengthen our ability to engage in international commerce and ensure the American military has the resources necessary to succeed, we urge your Administration to take action regarding the PRC’s actions in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. USTR’s determination concludes the PRC’s targeting is unreasonable, burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and that “responsive action is appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices covered in the investigation.” The United States must take action expeditiously to address the PRC’s unfair, harmful, and discriminatory practices. Thank you for your attention to this most important matter.

     Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Oriental fruit fly – Birkdale area

    Source: Auckland Council

    On 20 February 2025, a single male Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) was found in a backyard surveillance trap in the suburb of Birkdale, Auckland.

    Biosecurity New Zealand, which is part of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), has mounted an operation to determine if there are more fruit flies and get rid of any population.

    For the most up to date information on this response, visit Biosecurity New Zealand’s website.

    Changes to your kerbside collections

    This area is divided into two zones, A and B, which have different restrictions. To check if you are in the controlled area and which zone applies to you visit Biosecurity New Zealand’s website.

    These restrictions mean some changes to kerbside (particularly food scraps) collections in the area.

    Map of Zones A and B – Satellite Birkdale, Auckland February 2025 (source: MPI)

    Auckland Council waste collections in Zone A

    • There will be no food scraps collections (the small 23L bin) in this area until further notice.

    • Follow Biosecurity New Zealand’s instructions to dispose of your fruit and vegetable waste.

    • All other food waste e.g. meat, cooked meal scraps, dairy products, rice and pasta etc, should also go into your MPI

    • Rubbish and recycling collections will continue as usual.

    • Do not put food waste into your recycling bins or rubbish bins.

    Zone A general restrictions (source: Biosecurity New Zealand)

    • No whole fresh fruit and vegetables, except for leafy vegetables and soil free root vegetables, can be moved outside Zone A. This applies to all produce, regardless of whether it was bought or grown.

    • Compost and green waste from gardens also cannot be moved out of this zone.

    • Do not compost fruit and vegetables.

    • Biosecurity New Zealand is providing all households in Zone A with bins for fruit and vegetable waste, along with other food waste. Please follow all Biosecurity New Zealand’s instructions for disposal of fruit and vegetable waste.

    Auckland Council waste collections in Zone B

    • No whole fruit and vegetables grown in the Zone B area can be moved out of the controlled area. You are free to move commercially purchased fruit and vegetables (e.g. fruit and vegetables bought at the supermarket) out of the area.

    • Rubbish, recycling and food scraps collections continue as normal however all homegrown produce waste and garden waste needs to be disposed of in Biosecurity New Zealand bins located in your area.

    If in doubt, don’t take it out.

    What else you can do

    It requires a big effort from all of us to keep these fruit flies out. If you think you’ve found this fruit fly or seen what look like its maggots in fruit:

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-Evening Report: The promise of green iron, steel and ammonia is keeping the green hydrogen dream alive

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Changlong Wang, Research fellow in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Monash University

    D.Alimkin, Shutterstock

    Hydrogen was once sold as a universal climate fix — a clean, green wonder fuel for cars, homes, power grids and even global export. But reality has cooled that buzz.

    This week, the South Australian government shelved plans for a A$593 million hydrogen power plant, in favour of injecting that money into the $2.4 billion Whyalla steelworks rescue package. Premier Peter Malinauskas said there was “no point in producing hydrogen” without a customer: the steelworks.

    It’s the latest in a series of setbacks for hydrogen. Last year, Australian mining and energy giant Fortescue pared back its green hydrogen projects as a result of increasing costs and changing financial circumstances in the United States.

    Then, gas and oil heavyweight Woodside withdrew plans for two large-scale green hydrogen projects and Origin Energy dropped out of the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub.

    Meanwhile, the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project in Victoria, meant to ship hydrogen to Japan, has met with delays and overruns. Earlier this month, the new Queensland government chose to halt further investment in the Central Queensland Hydrogen Project, putting plans to export hydrogen in doubt.

    These setbacks show hydrogen isn’t the ultimate solution to all our energy needs, especially if we want to export it. But they don’t spell doom. Instead, they nudge us toward where hydrogen really shines: in heavy industry, right where it’s made.

    Heavy industry: where hydrogen makes sense

    Heavy industries such as steel manufacturing and ammonia production are where hydrogen proves its worth. These sectors are significant contributors to climate change — steel accounts for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia a further 2%.

    Most emissions from steelmaking come from burning coal in blast furnaces to convert ore into iron and carbon dioxide.

    In a cleaner alternative, hydrogen (when produced using renewable energy) can be used to strip oxygen from the ore and make iron, with water as a byproduct. The result is green iron, ready to be turned into steel in an electric arc furnace – with a fraction of the emissions.

    Ammonia is used to make fertiliser and industrial chemicals, and hydrogen is one of the main ingredients in its production. Hydrogen bonds with nitrogen from the air to form ammonia. No hydrogen, no ammonia — it’s that simple. Conventional ammonia plants get hydrogen from methane, producing CO₂ in the process. Green ammonia uses renewable energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water via electrolysis.

    Our recent research crunched the numbers on producing these new green commodities. We found making green iron in Australia with hydrogen and shipping it to Europe for steel production could be 21% cheaper than exporting raw iron ore and hydrogen separately. Plus, it could cut emissions by up to 95% compared to traditional methods.

    There are huge economic opportunities for Australia too. Instead of shipping low-value raw materials, Australia could export ready-to-use green iron or green steel, reshaping global supply chains while cutting costs and carbon. That’s the kind of rethink hydrogen enables.

    Industry hubs: a practical fix

    Transporting hydrogen long distances is costly and inefficient. The fix? Industry hubs that produce hydrogen right where it’s needed — next to steel mills, ammonia plants, desalination plants, water treatment plants or even aluminium smelters. Putting producers and consumers together slashes transport costs and unlocks efficiencies.

    We’ve built tools to pinpoint places with the greatest potential to produce these new green commodities.

    The Hydrogen Economic Fairways Tool maps where renewable energy, infrastructure and industrial sites align for cost-effective hydrogen production.

    The Green Steel Economic Fairways Mapper zooms in on prime locations for green steel, spotlighting places such as Eyre Peninsula in SA and the Pilbara in Western Australia, among others (see below). These locations have abundant wind and solar resources alongside an existing industrial base.

    The Green Steel Economic Fairways Mapper compares the levelised cost of steel, including production and transport to the port. a) Regional changes across Australia b) Example of how to optimise the system to minimise the levelised cost of producing 1 million tonnes per annum c) Breakdown of costs d) Hourly system performance, in terms of energy flows.
    Green Steel Economic Fairways Mapper, Geoscience Australia

    Challenges remain

    Green hydrogen promises to revolutionise heavy industries, but significant hurdles stand in the way of widespread domestic adoption. The biggest challenge comes from the unpredictable nature of renewable energy, which makes it hard to maintain the steady hydrogen supply industries need.

    The costs remain steep, too. Splitting water into hydrogen using renewable electricity isn’t cheap, particularly when you need backup storage systems to keep production going during cloudy or windless periods.

    Getting hydrogen where it needs to go poses another major challenge. As hydrogen is both bulky to transport and highly flammable, it requires special handling and infrastructure, driving up costs, especially for facilities far from production sites.

    Many companies also hesitate to invest in hydrogen-compatible equipment, as retrofitting existing plants or building new ones requires substantial upfront costs without guaranteed returns.

    The $2.4 billion rescue package for the Whyalla Steelworks (ABC News)

    Government backing: a push in the right direction

    Thursday’s announcement of A$2.4 billion investment in the Whyalla steelworks along with plans for a $1 billion green iron investment fund are a bold bet on green steel. Furthermore, the landmark Future Made in Australia legislation introduces a $6.7 billion Hydrogen Production Tax Incentive, offering $2 per kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced between 2027–28 and 2039–40, alongside a 10% tax credit for critical minerals processing.

    Meanwhile tax credits for green aluminium and alumina should help another heavy industry to navigate the energy transition using clean hydrogen.

    These measures aim to unlock tens of billions in private investment, boost regional economies, and position Australia as a leader in clean energy manufacturing. This isn’t just about one-off projects. It’s laying the groundwork for hubs that link renewable energy and hydrogen production to industrial demand.

    There’s more in the pipeline. The Hydrogen Headstart program pumps funds into hydrogen innovation, and the Future Made in Australia initiative backs clean industry with billions more. Add in policies like carbon pricing or low-interest loans, and the economics tilt even further toward green steel and ammonia. Government buying power — in the form of procurement targets for low-carbon materials — could seal the deal by guaranteeing demand.

    These policies aren’t just wishful thinking — they’re practical steps that are already working elsewhere. Sweden’s HYBRIT project, which paired green steel with government-backed demand, has already led to construction starting on new industrial-scale green steel facilities. At the same time, the European Union’s hydrogen strategy leans on carbon pricing and subsidies to guide industries and suppliers through the energy transition, while Japan offers incentives for the use of green steel in their automotive industry.

    Australia has the renewable energy and the industrial base to take advantage of these opportunities. With the right leadership, we can turn hydrogen’s stumbles into a global triumph for heavy industry.

    Changlong receives funding from the South Australian Department for Energy and Mining to conduct the SA Green Iron Study, and from Geoscience Australia under the Exploring for the Future program to develop the Hydrogen and Green Steel Economic Fairways tool. Changlong is affiliated with Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne, and is a visiting fellow at Engineering Science, Oxford University, UK.

    Stuart Walsh receives funding from Geoscience Australia supporting the development of the Bluecap software suite, which highlights opportunities for new renewable energy and critical mineral projects in Australia. Stuart received funding from the South Australian Department for Energy and Mining to conduct the SA Green Iron Study and from Geoscience Australia under the Exploring for the Future program to develop the Hydrogen and Green Steel Economic Fairways tool.

    ref. The promise of green iron, steel and ammonia is keeping the green hydrogen dream alive – https://theconversation.com/the-promise-of-green-iron-steel-and-ammonia-is-keeping-the-green-hydrogen-dream-alive-250410

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: I lost weight and my period stopped. How are weight and menstruation linked?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mia Schaumberg, Associate Professor in Physiology, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

    You may have noticed that changes in weight are sometimes accompanied by changes in your period.

    But what does one really have to do with the other?

    Maintaining a healthy weight is key to regular menstruation. Here’s why – and when to talk to your doctor.

    The role of hormones

    The menstrual cycle – including when you bleed and ovulate – is regulated by a balance of hormones, particularly oestrogen.

    The ovaries are connected to the brain through a hormonal signalling system. This acts as a kind of “chain of command” of hormones controlling the menstrual cycle.

    The brain produces a key hormone, called the gonadotropin-releasing hormone, in the hypothalamus. It stimulates the release of other hormones which tell the ovaries to produce oestrogen and release a mature egg (ovulation).

    But the release of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone depends on oestrogen levels and how much energy is available to the body. Both of these are closely related to body weight.

    Oestrogen is primarily produced in the ovaries, but fat cells also produce oestrogen. This is why weight – and more specifically body fat – can affect menstruation.

    Fat cells produce oestrogen, a hormone with a key role in the menstrual cycle.
    Halfpoint/Shutterstock

    Can being underweight affect my period?

    The body prioritises conserving energy. When reserves are low it stops anything non-essential, such as reproduction.

    This can happen when you are underweight, or suddenly lose weight. It can also happen to people who undertake intense exercise or have inadequate nutrition.

    The stress sends the hypothalamus into survival mode. As a result, the body lowers its production of the hormones important to ovulation, including oestrogen, and stops menstruation.

    Being chronically underweight means not having enough energy available to support reproduction, which can lead to menstrual irregularities including amenorrhea (no periods at all).

    This results in very low oestrogen levels and can cause potentially serious health risks, including infertility and bone loss.

    Missing periods is not always a cause for concern. But a chronic lack of energy availability can be, if not addressed. The two are linked, meaning understanding your period and being aware of any prolonged changes is important.

    How about being overweight?

    Higher body fat can elevate oestrogen levels.

    When you’re overweight your body stores extra energy in fat cells, which produce oestrogen and other hormones and can cause inflammation in the body. So, if you have a lot of fat cells, your body produces an excess of these hormones. This can affect normal functioning of the uterus lining (endometrium).

    Excess oestrogen and inflammation can interfere in the feedback system to the brain and stop ovulation. As a result, you may have irregular or missed periods.

    It can also lead to pain (dysmenorrhea) and heavier bleeding (menorrhagia).

    Being overweight can sometimes worsen premenstrual syndrome as well. One study found for every 1 kg increase in height (m²) in body mass index (BMI), the risk of premenstrual syndrome went up by 3%. Women with a BMI over 27.5 kg/m² had a much higher risk than those with a BMI under 20 kg/m².




    Read more:
    What is premenstrual dysphoric disorder? And how is it different to PMS?


    What else might be going on?

    Sometimes weight changes are linked to hormonal balances that indicate an underlying condition.

    For example, people with polycystic ovary syndrome may gain weight or find it hard to lose weight because they have a hormonal imbalance, including higher levels of testosterone.

    The syndrome is also associated with irregular periods and heavy bleeding. So, if you notice these symptoms, it’s a good idea to talk to your doctor.

    Similarly, weight changes and irregular periods in midlife might signal the start of perimenopause, the period before menopause (when your periods stop altogether).

    Changes in weight and your period could be a sign of menopause approaching.
    Sabrina Bracher/Shutterstock

    When should I worry?

    Small changes in when your period comes or how long it lasts are usually harmless.

    Similarly, slight fluctuations in weight won’t usually have a significant impact on your period – or the changes may be so subtle you don’t notice them.

    But regular menstruation is an important marker of female health. Sometimes changes in flow, regularity or the pain you experience can indicate there’s something else going on.

    If you notice changes and they don’t feel right to you, speak to a health care provider.

    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.

    ref. I lost weight and my period stopped. How are weight and menstruation linked? – https://theconversation.com/i-lost-weight-and-my-period-stopped-how-are-weight-and-menstruation-linked-244401

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: I lost weight and my period stopped. How are weight and menstruation linked?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mia Schaumberg, Associate Professor in Physiology, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

    You may have noticed that changes in weight are sometimes accompanied by changes in your period.

    But what does one really have to do with the other?

    Maintaining a healthy weight is key to regular menstruation. Here’s why – and when to talk to your doctor.

    The role of hormones

    The menstrual cycle – including when you bleed and ovulate – is regulated by a balance of hormones, particularly oestrogen.

    The ovaries are connected to the brain through a hormonal signalling system. This acts as a kind of “chain of command” of hormones controlling the menstrual cycle.

    The brain produces a key hormone, called the gonadotropin-releasing hormone, in the hypothalamus. It stimulates the release of other hormones which tell the ovaries to produce oestrogen and release a mature egg (ovulation).

    But the release of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone depends on oestrogen levels and how much energy is available to the body. Both of these are closely related to body weight.

    Oestrogen is primarily produced in the ovaries, but fat cells also produce oestrogen. This is why weight – and more specifically body fat – can affect menstruation.

    Fat cells produce oestrogen, a hormone with a key role in the menstrual cycle.
    Halfpoint/Shutterstock

    Can being underweight affect my period?

    The body prioritises conserving energy. When reserves are low it stops anything non-essential, such as reproduction.

    This can happen when you are underweight, or suddenly lose weight. It can also happen to people who undertake intense exercise or have inadequate nutrition.

    The stress sends the hypothalamus into survival mode. As a result, the body lowers its production of the hormones important to ovulation, including oestrogen, and stops menstruation.

    Being chronically underweight means not having enough energy available to support reproduction, which can lead to menstrual irregularities including amenorrhea (no periods at all).

    This results in very low oestrogen levels and can cause potentially serious health risks, including infertility and bone loss.

    Missing periods is not always a cause for concern. But a chronic lack of energy availability can be, if not addressed. The two are linked, meaning understanding your period and being aware of any prolonged changes is important.

    How about being overweight?

    Higher body fat can elevate oestrogen levels.

    When you’re overweight your body stores extra energy in fat cells, which produce oestrogen and other hormones and can cause inflammation in the body. So, if you have a lot of fat cells, your body produces an excess of these hormones. This can affect normal functioning of the uterus lining (endometrium).

    Excess oestrogen and inflammation can interfere in the feedback system to the brain and stop ovulation. As a result, you may have irregular or missed periods.

    It can also lead to pain (dysmenorrhea) and heavier bleeding (menorrhagia).

    Being overweight can sometimes worsen premenstrual syndrome as well. One study found for every 1 kg increase in height (m²) in body mass index (BMI), the risk of premenstrual syndrome went up by 3%. Women with a BMI over 27.5 kg/m² had a much higher risk than those with a BMI under 20 kg/m².




    Read more:
    What is premenstrual dysphoric disorder? And how is it different to PMS?


    What else might be going on?

    Sometimes weight changes are linked to hormonal balances that indicate an underlying condition.

    For example, people with polycystic ovary syndrome may gain weight or find it hard to lose weight because they have a hormonal imbalance, including higher levels of testosterone.

    The syndrome is also associated with irregular periods and heavy bleeding. So, if you notice these symptoms, it’s a good idea to talk to your doctor.

    Similarly, weight changes and irregular periods in midlife might signal the start of perimenopause, the period before menopause (when your periods stop altogether).

    Changes in weight and your period could be a sign of menopause approaching.
    Sabrina Bracher/Shutterstock

    When should I worry?

    Small changes in when your period comes or how long it lasts are usually harmless.

    Similarly, slight fluctuations in weight won’t usually have a significant impact on your period – or the changes may be so subtle you don’t notice them.

    But regular menstruation is an important marker of female health. Sometimes changes in flow, regularity or the pain you experience can indicate there’s something else going on.

    If you notice changes and they don’t feel right to you, speak to a health care provider.

    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.

    ref. I lost weight and my period stopped. How are weight and menstruation linked? – https://theconversation.com/i-lost-weight-and-my-period-stopped-how-are-weight-and-menstruation-linked-244401

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI China: China’s pro-consumption policies in full swing

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    Chinese consumers have benefited from the country’s pro-consumption policies, which cover goods such as mobile phones, home appliances and automobiles, said the Ministry of Commerce on Thursday.

    As of Wednesday, 169,000 vehicles were scrapped and recycled and 647,000 electric bicycles were traded in for new models nationwide this year under the country’s consumer goods trade-in program, said He Yadong, a spokesperson for the ministry, at a press conference.

    More than 3.97 million consumers purchased over 4.87 million home appliance units during the same period, said the spokesperson.

    From Jan. 20 to Feb. 19, 26.71 million consumers applied for subsidies to purchase new mobile phones, tablets and smartwatches.

    Driven by the pro-consumption policies, related industries have maintained a strong growth momentum.

    Since the beginning of this year, the nationwide vehicle scrapping volume has increased by around 35 percent compared to the same period last year, while the retail sales of new energy passenger vehicles have risen by over 20 percent year on year, He said.

    China announced in early January a raft of measures to expand the scope of the consumer goods trade-in program amid efforts to boost domestic demand and spur economic growth.

    Under the expanded program, categories of home appliances eligible for government subsidies have been increased from eight in 2024 to 12 in 2025.

    Consumers can also enjoy subsidies of up to 500 yuan (about 69.72 U.S. dollars) apiece while purchasing digital products such as mobile phones.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Global: It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anna M. Kotarba-Morley, Senior Lecturer in Museum and Curatorial Studies / Research Fellow, University of Adelaide

    Wikimedia/The Conversation

    Archaeologists in Egypt have made an exciting discovery: the tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a ruler who has long been overshadowed by his famous wife and half-sister, Queen Hatshepsut.

    The remarkable find is located in the Western Valley (a burial ground for queens rather than kings), near the complex of Deir el-Bahari, which houses the funerary temple of Hatshepsut. Both of us worked together as archaeologists at this spectacular site some 15 years ago.

    Thutmose II’s tomb has been labelled the first, and biggest, discovery of a royal tomb since Tutankhamun’s tomb was found just over 100 years ago.

    Despite being totally empty, it’s a crucial element in further understanding a transformative period in ancient Egyptian history.

    Hatshepsut’s forgotten brother and husband

    Thutmose II (also called Akheperenre) reigned in the first half of the 15th century BCE. This made him the fourth ruler of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, which marked the beginning of the New Kingdom period.

    Thutmose II likely ruled for a little over ten years, although some scholars believe his reign may have lasted only three years.

    He was the son of a great pharaoh Thutmose I and his lesser wife, Mutnofret. He married his half-sister Queen Hatshepsut according to the royal custom, to solidify the rule and bloodline. Together they had a daughter named Nefrure.

    Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in 1881 but his original tomb was unknown until now.
    Wikimedia

    Upon his death, his wife Hatshepsut became the sixth pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty – and arguably one of the most famous and successful female rulers of all time.

    Military activities

    As the successor of Thutmose I, Thutmose II continued his father’s military policy in the southern regions of Egypt.

    According to preserved inscriptions, he ordered the brutal suppression of a rebellion against Egyptian rule in the land of Kush (in present-day north Sudan). As a result, a significant number of prisoners were brought to Egypt – possibly as part of a campaign.

    But Thutmose II’s military campaigns were minor in comparison to the grand conquests of his predecessors and successors. Most historians believe he was a weak ruler and that Hatshepsut had a major role in governing the country, even long before his death. However, others contest this.

    Thutmose II’s short reign left modest traces of building activity in Karnak, one of the largest religious centres in ancient Egypt, located in present-day Luxor.

    The structure, of which only fragments survive, features a unique decoration depicting Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as his royal wife before she became a ruler, and their daughter Nefrure. The origins of the monument are uncertain. It’s possible Thutmose II started it and Hatshepsut finished it.

    The monument was reconstructed by French researchers and can now be admired at the Open Air Museum in Karnak.

    Karnak is one of the most important religious centres in Ancient Egypt.
    Katarzyna Kapiec

    Other monuments of Thutmose II were found in the southern regions of Egypt, such as in Elephantine, in the city of Aswan, and in northern Sudan (likely connected to his military campaigns).

    The condemnation of Hatshepsut’s memory

    Interestingly, the name of Thutmose II became strongly associated with many of Hatshepsut’s constructions due to the actions of Thutmose III.

    Regarded as one of the greatest warriors, military commanders and military strategists of all time, Thutmose III was the nephew and stepson of Hatshepsut, and co-ruled with her as a regent.

    At the end of Thutmose III’s reign, some 20 years after Hatshepsut’s death, he carried out a large-scale campaign to remove or alter Hatshepsut’s names and images. Scholars call this “damnatio memoriae”, or condemnation of the memory.

    An example of Hatshepsut’s ‘damnatio memoriae’ at Deir el-Bahari. Hatshepsut’s cartouches (left) were defaced, while Thutmose III’s (right) remained untouched.
    Wikimedia

    This was likely due to concerns about securing the throne for his successor, Amenhotep II, by linking him to his male ancestors.

    In many cases, Hatshepsut’s name was replaced with that of Thutmose II, making him the principal celebrant in temples built by Hatshepsut, such as in Deir el-Bahari.

    View at the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari at the dawn.
    Katarzyna Kapiec

    What does Thutmose II’s empty tomb tell us?

    The newly discovered tomb reveals fresh details about the status of Thutmose II and his role in the sociopolitical structure of 15th century BCE Egypt – a period of territorial expansion, wealth and political intrigue. It also sheds light on the perception of his rule at the time.

    Thutmose II has been painted as an ineffectual ruler. And the latest findings don’t contradict this.

    Unlike his father Thutmose I, who expanded Egypt’s reign through military strength, or his stepson Thutmose III, who became one of the most famous Egyptian warrior-kings, his modest tomb suggests his legacy may not have been as widely celebrated as others in his dynasty.

    The tomb’s location is also intriguing, as it is near the tombs of royal wives, including the cliff tomb of Hatshepsut, which was prepared for her when she was still a royal wife.

    Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in the so-called Royal Cache in Deir el-Bahari in 1881, alongside other royal mummies. Many royal mummies were relocated here for protection from flooding and during the uncertain times of the 21st Dynasty (circa 1077–950 BCE), some 400–500 years after Thutmose II’s original burial.

    However, experts suspect Thutmose II’s tomb might have been emptied even earlier due to flooding from a waterfall above it.

    The two of us speculate another tomb may have been built for him, and is still awaiting discovery.

    An 1881 photograph of some of the coffins and mummies found in DB320, taken before the mummies were unwrapped.
    Wikimedia

    Ultimately, Thutmose II’s reign remains shrouded in mystery due to the lack of available records. The search for his tomb – from Western Valley, through the Valley of the Kings, all the way to Deir el-Bahari – spanned centuries.

    Despite its poorly preserved state, and its scarcity compared with Tutankhamun’s splendorous tomb, this discovery will expand our understanding of the overlooked figure of Thutmose II, and the role he played in setting up the reign of Hatshepsut – arguably the most successful of the four female pharaohs.

    In fact, paving the way for the ascent of Hatshepsut may have been his greatest contribution.

    Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from Australian Research Council and previously received funding from National Centre of Science in Poland.

    Katarzyna Kapiec receives funding from National Science Centre in Poland

    ref. It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II? – https://theconversation.com/its-the-biggest-egyptian-tomb-discovery-in-a-century-who-was-thutmose-ii-250432

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Rosen Demand Department of Veterans Affairs Provides Answers Regarding Mass Employee Terminations

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Doug Collins demanding he provide answers on the mass terminations of personnel across the VA, specifically those in Nevada. The Senators expressed concern that these staff reductions would have detrimental impacts for veterans in Nevada and across the United States.
    “We are writing to express our concerns with recent terminations of employment at Nevada’s Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities, including all affected employees and the proportion of those employees who are veterans,” wrote the Senators. “The VA plays a critical role in ensuring that our nation’s veterans receive the care, benefits, and support they have earned through sacrifice. A significant reduction in staff could have serious consequences for both VA operations and our veterans in Nevada.”
    Nevada is home to nearly 220,000 veterans who depend on VA facilities in Las Vegas, Reno, and rural communities. The terminations at the VA could lead to increased wait times for medical care, delays in processing disability claims, and disruptions in the delivery of essential support services our veterans need.
    “The VA has long served as an important source of employment for those who have sacrificed for this country, offering them a structured and mission-driven career path,” the Senators continue. “Many of these employees have service-connected disabilities or other conditions that make VA employment particularly vital to their financial and personal stability. Any significant reduction in the number of veterans employed by the VA risks worsening unemployment rates among former service members and may contribute to broader issues such as homelessness and economic instability within the veteran community.”
    Specifically, the Senators requested the following information about the terminated employees:
    The total number of Veterans Affairs employees, located in Nevada, who have been terminated.
    The number of these employees who were veterans.
    The number of these employees who are veterans with service-connected disabilities.
    The number of employees who were terminated as probationary employees, but who had many years at VA in a different position.
    A description of the position and responsibilities of each terminated employee.
    A detailed explanation of the rationale behind these terminations, including any financial, policy, or strategic considerations.
    Any assessments or analyses conducted to evaluate the potential impact of these terminations on VA services.
    Any measures being taken to mitigate the consequences of these terminations, particularly concerning veteran employees and the delivery of essential services.
    The full text of the letter can be found here.
    Senators Cortez Masto and Rosen are champions for our service members and their families, as well as America’s veterans. In a previous letter to VA Secretary Collins, they demanded the Secretary take immediate action to secure veterans’ personal information provided by VA or other agencies to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Last year, the Senators passed legislation to officially authorize construction of a new VA hospital in Reno.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Amendments to GOP’s Budget Would Lower Costs for Families, Protect Health Care, Combat DOGE, Safeguard Federal Resources 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
    Welch filed more than 70 amendments to the budget resolution 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee and Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, filed amendments to Senate Republicans’ budget resolution which, as proposed, will cut millions in federal funds for working families to give tax cuts to the richest Americans. 
    Senator Welch’s amendments to the Republican budget resolution focus on lowering costs for Vermonters, protecting access to health care, supporting rural care providers, combatting President Trump’s lawlessness and Elon Musk’s DOGE, and defending federal programs and disaster recovery resources Vermont communities rely on. 
    “President Trump and Congressional Republicans are busy trying to pass a massive tax cut for their billionaire friends at the expense of hardworking families, while Democrats are working to lower costs and protect the programs and services Americans depend on. The contrast couldn’t be more clear,” said Sen. Peter Welch. “It’s an absolute disgrace that Republicans are proposing to cut Medicaid funding, kick people off their health care, and are targeting the nutrition programs families need—all to pay for their tax cut.” 
    Senator Welch added: “This will be my first ‘vote-a-rama’ in the Senate, and I can already say this is the image of dysfunctional legislating. We need to return to regular order, respect the regular process, and recommit to finding common ground.”  
    Senate Republicans’ proposed budget blueprint will slash Medicaid and increase health care costs for millions of seniors, children, veterans, people with disabilities, and people with chronic diseases in order to give tax handouts to the ultra-wealthy. Their budget will cut funding for education, scientific research, nutrition programs, and more. 
    Senator Welch filed more than 70 amendments to the budget resolution, including amendments to:  
    Lower Costs for Working Families:   
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to block legislation that reduces or eliminates essential programs like Head Start, child care funding, and Meals on Wheels, which support families, children, and communities. 
    Senator Welch filed amendments to prohibit tax increases for households making less than $200,000 in taxable income and stop any legislation that will increase childhood poverty. 
    Senator Welch filed amendments to prohibit cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and to improve rural access to nutrition programs. 
    Senator Welch filed amendments to protect rural broadband deployment and promote internet affordability.  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to block tariffs on energy imports, which would raise costs for consumers.   
    Senator Welch filed amendments to ban the budget from increasing costs for American consumers by repealing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  
    Protect Access to Affordable Health Care and Prescription Drugs:  
    Senator Welch filed amendments to prohibit the reduction or elimination of funding for rural care providers, health centers, and critical access hospitals.   
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to prohibit raising the cost of prescription drugs for seniors.  
    Senator Welch filed amendments to prohibit funding for criminal investigations, prosecutions, and surveillance of women’s reproductive health decisions, including abortion and IVF, and health care providers who provide emergency medical abortions.  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to prohibit cuts to programs that support substance use disorder treatment and prevention.  
    Defend Federal Programs and Disaster Recovery Resources for Rural America:  
    Senator Welch filed amendments to block the budget resolution from making cuts to critical agriculture programs and ensure communities have the necessary resources for disaster response, recovery and resilience. 
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to ensure USDA’s Rural Development, Farm Service Agency, and Natural Resources Conversation Service State offices operate at full capacity.  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to support federal dairy programs and improve the resilience of U.S. food systems.  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment that protects Congress’ constitutionally-granted power of the purse and end the Trump Administration’s illegal federal funding freeze. 
    Combat the Influence of President Trump’s Lawlessness and Elon Musk’s DOGE:  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to prohibit the government from entering into contracts with DOGE-associated officials.  
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to require the staff and activities of the so-called “Department on Government Efficiency” (DOGE) are vetted, have proper oversight, and access to government information is restricted to those with the appropriate security clearances.    
    Senator Welch filed an amendment to require federal agencies to fully comply with all lawfully issued court orders.  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Creative progress or mass theft? Why a major AI art auction is provoking wonder – and outrage

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jessica Herrington, Futures Specialist, School of Cybernetics, Australian National University

    Thirty-four artworks created with artificial intelligence (AI) have gone up for sale at Christie’s in New York, in the famed auction house’s first collection dedicated to AI art.

    Christie’s says the collection aims to explore “human agency in the age of AI within fine art”, prompting viewers to question the evolving role of the artist and of creativity.

    Questions are not all the collection has prompted: there has also been a backlash. At the time of writing, more than 6,000 artists have signed an open letter calling on Christie’s to cancel the auction.

    What’s in the collection?

    Sougwen Chung’s Study 33 (2024) was created through a process that captured data from an EEG headset and a computer vision system tracking body movement and fed it to a painting robot called D.O.U.G._4.
    Sougwen Chung / Christie’s

    The Augmented Intelligence collection, up for auction from February 20 to March 5, spans work from early AI art pioneers such as Harold Cohen through to contemporary innovators such as Refik Anadol, Vanessa Rosa and Sougwen Chung.

    The showcased pieces vary widely in their use of AI. Some are physical objects, some are digital-only works – sold as non-fungible tokens or NFTs – and others are offered as both digital and physical components together.

    Some have a performance aspect, such as Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 (to be titled by AI at the conclusion of the sale).

    After generating an initial image tile, the work iteratively expands outwards, growing with each new bid in the auction. As the image evolves digitally, it is translated onto a physical canvas by an oil-painting robot. The price estimate for the work ranges from US$100 to US$1.7 million, and at the time of writing the bid sits at US$3,000.

    Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 involves art generated by AI and painted by robot as bids come in.
    Alexander Reben / Christie’s

    Claims of exploitation

    The controversy surrounding this show is not surprising. Debates over the creation of AI art have simmered ever since the technology became widely available in 2022.

    The open letter calling for the auction to be cancelled argues that many works in the exhibition use “AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license”.

    Embedding Study 1 & 2 (from the xhairymutantx series) (2024) by Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst explores the concept of ‘Holly Herndon’ in generative AI models.
    Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst / Christie’s

    The letter says:

    These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them.

    The models in question include popular image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E.

    The letter continues:

    [Christie’s] support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work.

    Copyright and cultural appropriation

    Refik Anadol’s Machine Hallucinations – ISS Dreams (2021) is a video work used an AI model trained on publicly available images taken from the International Space Station.
    Refik Anadol / Christie’s

    There are several attempts by artists to bring legal proceedings against AI companies underway. As yet, the key question remains unresolved: by training AI models on existing artworks, do AI models infringe artists’ copyright, or is this a case of fair use?

    Artists who are critical of AI are rightly concerned about losing their incomes, or their skills becoming irrelevant or outdated. They are also concerned about losing their creative community – their place in the creative ecosystem.

    Last year, Indigenous artists withdrew from a Brisbane art prize, highlighting concerns about AI and cultural appropriation.

    At the same time, many AI artists don’t use copyrighted material. Refik Anadol, for instance, has stated that his work in the Christie’s collection was made using publicly available datasets from NASA.

    How the ‘work’ of art is changing

    The Christie’s event occurs during a major shift in what it means to be an artist, and to be creative. Some participants in the show even question whether the label of “artist” is even necessary or required to make meaningful imagery and artefacts.

    Many non-artists may wonder – if AI is used, where is the real “work” of art? The answer is that many forms of work will look different in the age of AI, and creative endeavours are no exception.

    Creativity gave humans an evolutionary edge. What happens if society censors or undermines certain forms of creativity?

    Pindar Van Arman’s Emerging Faces (2017) was created via two AI agents: one attempted to generate images of faces, while the other stopped the process as soon as it recognised the image as a face.
    Pindar Van Arman / Christie’s

    Clinging to traditional ideas about how things are done ignores the bigger picture. When used thoughtfully, technology can stretch our creative potential.

    And AI cannot make art without human artists. Creating with new technologies requires context, direction, meaning, and an aesthetic sense.

    In the case of the Christie’s auction, artists are doing much more than typing in prompts. They iterate with data, refine models, and actively shape the end result.

    This evolving relationship between humans and machines reframes the creative process, with AI becoming more like a “conversational partner”.

    What now?

    Calling for the Christie’s auction to be cancelled may be shortsighted. It oversimplifies a complex issue and sidesteps deeper questions about how we should think about authorship, what authenticity means, and the evolving relationship between artists and the tools they use.

    Whether we embrace or resist AI art, the Christie’s auction pushes us to rethink artistic labour and the creative process.

    At the same time, Christie’s may need to take more care to produce collections that are sensitive to contemporary issues. Artists have real concerns about loss of work and income. A “move fast and break things” approach feels ill-suited to the thoughtfulness associated with artistic production.

    Harold Cohen’s Untitled (i23-3758) (1987) was produced with the groundbreaking AARON image-generating AI system.
    Harold Cohen / Christie’s

    Beyond protest, more education and collaboration is required overall. Artists who do not adapt to new technologies and ways of creating may be left behind.

    Equally important is ensuring AI does not diminish human agency or exploit creatives. Discussions around achieving sustainable and inclusive AI could follow other sectors focusing on equally sharing benefits and having rigorous ethical standards.

    Examples might come from the open source community (and organisations such as the Open Source Initiative), where licensing and frameworks allow contributors to benefit from collective development. And in the tech realm, some software companies (such as IBM) do stand out for their rigorous approach to ethics.

    Rather than cancelling the Christie’s auction, perhaps this is a moment for us to reimagine how we do creativity and adapt with AI.

    But are artists – and audiences – prepared for a future where the nature of being an artist, and creativity itself, is radically different?

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

    ref. Creative progress or mass theft? Why a major AI art auction is provoking wonder – and outrage – https://theconversation.com/creative-progress-or-mass-theft-why-a-major-ai-art-auction-is-provoking-wonder-and-outrage-250157

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump is ruling like a ‘king’, following the Putin model. How can he be stopped?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By William Partlett, Associate Professor of Public Law, The University of Melbourne

    A month in, and it is clear even to conservatives that US President Donald Trump is attempting to fundamentally reshape the role of the American president.

    Trump and his supporters sees the natural authority of the American president in broad terms, similar to those of the Russian president, or a king. Trump, in fact, has already likened himself to a king.

    This desire to “Russify” the presidency is not an accident: Trump and many of his supporters admire the king-like power that Vladimir Putin exercises as Russian president.

    Understanding how Trump is attempting to transform presidential power is key to mobilising in the most effective way to stop it.

    Decrees by a ‘king’

    Russia’s system of government is what I call a “crown-presidential” system, which makes the president a kind of elected king.

    Two powers are central to this role.

    First, like a king, the Russian “crown-president” does not rely on an elected legislature to make policy. Instead, Putin exercises policy-making authority unilaterally via decree.

    Putin has used decrees to wage wars, privatise the economy and even to amend the constitution to lay claim to the parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since 2014.

    He has also used these decrees in a performative way, for example, by declaring pay raises for all Russian state employees without any ability to enforce it.

    Over the last month, Trump has made similar use of decrees (what the White House now terms “presidential actions”).

    He has issued scores of presidential decrees to unilaterally reshape vast swathes of American policy – far more than past presidents. Trump sees these orders as a way of both exercising and demonstrating his vast presidential power.

    Control over the bureaucracy

    Second, like a king, Putin does not allow the Russian legislature to use the law to organise the executive branch and create agencies independent of presidential control. Instead, he has unquestioned dominance over both the organisation and staffing of the executive branch. This has given him vast power to dominate politics by controlling information gathering and legal prosecutions.

    A similar push is underway in the United States. Trump has appointed key loyalists to head the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Moreover, he is seeking to restructure the executive branch by abolishing some agencies altogether and vastly reducing the size of the workforce in others.

    Can the courts stop Trump?

    Trump’s attempt to Russify the American presidency undermines the American constitutional order.

    Courts are the natural “first responders” in this kind of crisis. And many courts have blocked some of Trump’s early decrees.

    This legal response is important. But it is not enough on it own.

    First, the US Supreme Court might be more willing to accept this expansion of presidential power than lower courts. In a ruling last year, for example, the court granted the president immunity from criminal prosecution, showing itself to be sympathetic to broad understandings of executive power.

    Second, presidential decrees can be easily withdrawn and modified. This can allow Trump and his legal team to recalibrate as his decrees are challenged and find the best test cases to take to the Supreme Court.

    Third, parts of the conservative right have long argued for a far more powerful president. For instance, the idea of a “unitary executive” has been discussed in conservative circles for years. This essentially claims that the president should be able to direct and control the entire executive branch, from the bureaucracy to prosecutors to the FBI.

    These arguments are already being made to justify Trump’s actions. As Elon Musk has said, “you could not ask for a stronger mandate from the public” to reform the executive branch. These arguments will be made to courts to justify Trump’s expansion of power.

    Fourth, even if the Supreme Court does block some decrees, it is possible the White House will simply ignore these actions. We had an early glimpse of this when Trump posted that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”.

    Vice President JD Vance has also said judges “aren’t allowed” to block the president’s “legitimate power”.

    The importance of political mobilisation and messaging

    Trump’s aggressive use of presidential power is not just a constitutional crisis, it is a political one. For those seeking to resist, this is too important to just be left to the courts; it must also involve America’s key political institutions.

    The most obvious place to start is in Congress. Lawmakers must act decisively to assert the legal power granted to them in the constitution to check the power of the presidency. This would include active Congressional use of its budgeting power, as well as its oversight powers on the presidency.

    This could happen now if a few Republicans were to take a principled position on important constitutional issues, though nearly all have so far preferred to fall in line. Democrats could retake both branches of Congress in the midterm elections in 2026, though, and assert this power.

    The states can and should also act to resist this expansion of presidential power. This action could take many forms, including refusing to deploy their traditional police powers to enforce decrees they view to be unconstitutional or unlawful.

    In mobilising to defend the constitution, these institutions could appeal to the American people with more than the narrow legal argument that Trump’s acts are unconstitutional. They could also make the broader political argument that turning the American president into a Russian-style, elected king will foster a form of inefficient, unresponsive and corrupt politics.

    Or, in the words of The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, “it’s the corruption, stupid”.

    Time is of the essence. Russia shows the more time a “crown-president” is able to operate, the more entrenched this system becomes. For those hoping to preserve American democracy, the time is now for not just legal, but political resistance.

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

    ref. Trump is ruling like a ‘king’, following the Putin model. How can he be stopped? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-ruling-like-a-king-following-the-putin-model-how-can-he-be-stopped-249721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna M. Kotarba-Morley, Senior Lecturer in Museum and Curatorial Studies / Research Fellow, University of Adelaide

    Wikimedia/The Conversation

    Archaeologists in Egypt have made an exciting discovery: the tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a ruler who has long been overshadowed by his famous wife and half-sister, Queen Hatshepsut.

    The remarkable find is located in the Western Valley (a burial ground for queens rather than kings), near the complex of Deir el-Bahari, which houses the funerary temple of Hatshepsut. Both of us worked together as archaeologists at this spectacular site some 15 years ago.

    Thutmose II’s tomb has been labelled the first, and biggest, discovery of a royal tomb since Tutankhamun’s tomb was found just over 100 years ago.

    Despite being totally empty, it’s a crucial element in further understanding a transformative period in ancient Egyptian history.

    Hatshepsut’s forgotten brother and husband

    Thutmose II (also called Akheperenre) reigned in the first half of the 15th century BCE. This made him the fourth ruler of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, which marked the beginning of the New Kingdom period.

    Thutmose II likely ruled for a little over ten years, although some scholars believe his reign may have lasted only three years.

    He was the son of a great pharaoh Thutmose I and his lesser wife, Mutnofret. He married his half-sister Queen Hatshepsut according to the royal custom, to solidify the rule and bloodline. Together they had a daughter named Nefrure.

    Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in 1881 but his original tomb was unknown until now.
    Wikimedia

    Upon his death, his wife Hatshepsut became the sixth pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty – and arguably one of the most famous and successful female rulers of all time.

    Military activities

    As the successor of Thutmose I, Thutmose II continued his father’s military policy in the southern regions of Egypt.

    According to preserved inscriptions, he ordered the brutal suppression of a rebellion against Egyptian rule in the land of Kush (in present-day north Sudan). As a result, a significant number of prisoners were brought to Egypt – possibly as part of a campaign.

    But Thutmose II’s military campaigns were minor in comparison to the grand conquests of his predecessors and successors. Most historians believe he was a weak ruler and that Hatshepsut had a major role in governing the country, even long before his death. However, others contest this.

    Thutmose II’s short reign left modest traces of building activity in Karnak, one of the largest religious centres in ancient Egypt, located in present-day Luxor.

    The structure, of which only fragments survive, features a unique decoration depicting Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as his royal wife before she became a ruler, and their daughter Nefrure. The origins of the monument are uncertain. It’s possible Thutmose II started it and Hatshepsut finished it.

    The monument was reconstructed by French researchers and can now be admired at the Open Air Museum in Karnak.

    Karnak is one of the most important religious centres in Ancient Egypt.
    Katarzyna Kapiec

    Other monuments of Thutmose II were found in the southern regions of Egypt, such as in Elephantine, in the city of Aswan, and in northern Sudan (likely connected to his military campaigns).

    The condemnation of Hatshepsut’s memory

    Interestingly, the name of Thutmose II became strongly associated with many of Hatshepsut’s constructions due to the actions of Thutmose III.

    Regarded as one of the greatest warriors, military commanders and military strategists of all time, Thutmose III was the nephew and stepson of Hatshepsut, and co-ruled with her as a regent.

    At the end of Thutmose III’s reign, some 20 years after Hatshepsut’s death, he carried out a large-scale campaign to remove or alter Hatshepsut’s names and images. Scholars call this “damnatio memoriae”, or condemnation of the memory.

    An example of Hatshepsut’s ‘damnatio memoriae’ at Deir el-Bahari. Hatshepsut’s cartouches (left) were defaced, while Thutmose III’s (right) remained untouched.
    Wikimedia

    This was likely due to concerns about securing the throne for his successor, Amenhotep II, by linking him to his male ancestors.

    In many cases, Hatshepsut’s name was replaced with that of Thutmose II, making him the principal celebrant in temples built by Hatshepsut, such as in Deir el-Bahari.

    View at the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari at the dawn.
    Katarzyna Kapiec

    What does Thutmose II’s empty tomb tell us?

    The newly discovered tomb reveals fresh details about the status of Thutmose II and his role in the sociopolitical structure of 15th century BCE Egypt – a period of territorial expansion, wealth and political intrigue. It also sheds light on the perception of his rule at the time.

    Thutmose II has been painted as an ineffectual ruler. And the latest findings don’t contradict this.

    Unlike his father Thutmose I, who expanded Egypt’s reign through military strength, or his stepson Thutmose III, who became one of the most famous Egyptian warrior-kings, his modest tomb suggests his legacy may not have been as widely celebrated as others in his dynasty.

    The tomb’s location is also intriguing, as it is near the tombs of royal wives, including the cliff tomb of Hatshepsut, which was prepared for her when she was still a royal wife.

    Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in the so-called Royal Cache in Deir el-Bahari in 1881, alongside other royal mummies. Many royal mummies were relocated here for protection from flooding and during the uncertain times of the 21st Dynasty (circa 1077–950 BCE), some 400–500 years after Thutmose II’s original burial.

    However, experts suspect Thutmose II’s tomb might have been emptied even earlier due to flooding from a waterfall above it.

    The two of us speculate another tomb may have been built for him, and is still awaiting discovery.

    An 1881 photograph of some of the coffins and mummies found in DB320, taken before the mummies were unwrapped.
    Wikimedia

    Ultimately, Thutmose II’s reign remains shrouded in mystery due to the lack of available records. The search for his tomb – from Western Valley, through the Valley of the Kings, all the way to Deir el-Bahari – spanned centuries.

    Despite its poorly preserved state, and its scarcity compared with Tutankhamun’s splendorous tomb, this discovery will expand our understanding of the overlooked figure of Thutmose II, and the role he played in setting up the reign of Hatshepsut – arguably the most successful of the four female pharaohs.

    In fact, paving the way for the ascent of Hatshepsut may have been his greatest contribution.

    Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from Australian Research Council and previously received funding from National Centre of Science in Poland.

    Katarzyna Kapiec receives funding from National Science Centre in Poland

    ref. It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II? – https://theconversation.com/its-the-biggest-egyptian-tomb-discovery-in-a-century-who-was-thutmose-ii-250432

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Man charged over Preston firearms seizure

    Source: Tasmania Police

    Man charged over Preston firearms seizure

    Friday, 21 February 2025 – 1:09 pm.

    A 23 year old Preston man has been charged with dealing in firearms after a firearm seizure earlier this month.
    Two homemade firearms and a gel blaster were seized during the targeted search on 6 February.
    The man has since been arrested and charged with multiple firearms offences including dealing in firearms, possessing a firearm without a licence, failing to take reasonable precautions with a firearm, and possessing an unregistered firearm.
    He was remanded in custody to appear in the Devonport Magistrates Court in March.
    Anyone with information about illegal firearms should contact police on 131 444 or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or at crimestopperstas.com.au. Information can be provided anonymously.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla Warns Against Kash Patel’s Nomination to Lead the FBI

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

    WATCH: Padilla calls on Republicans to stand up against unfit FBI Director nomineeWASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined Committee Democrats in sounding the alarm on Kash Patel’s reckless nomination to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Padilla delivered remarks ahead of Patel’s confirmation vote at a press conference outside FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. and in a speech on the Senate floor. Patel was confirmed as FBI Director this afternoon by a final vote of 51-49.
    During the press conference this morning, Padilla raised serious concerns about Patel’s lack of judgement, independence, and preparedness to protect Americans and uphold the Constitution. He also condemned President Trump’s pattern of selecting unfit and unqualified candidates like Patel for senior positions in his administration.
    “Only in the year 2025 — when President Trump has the Republican Party basically in a headlock — can an extreme nominee like Kash Patel be put forward with the support of the President and seemingly the support of Republicans in the Senate.”
    “This isn’t just politics. There is a real threat to the safety of Americans in every community across the country. If he is confirmed, the purging of law enforcement will continue. If he is confirmed, this department will be weaponized, as he has threatened to do. If he is confirmed, Americans will be less safe.”
    On the Senate floor, Padilla called out Patel’s extreme loyalty to President Trump over his duty to oversee the nation’s premier law enforcement agency.
    “Here we are, pretending as if a man who promised to shut down the FBI headquarters on day one and turn it into a museum for the ‘Deep State’ is now fit to lead the FBI. You see, time and again, Kash Patel has shown that his loyalty lies not with the rule of law, but with Donald Trump.”
    “When it comes to protecting the security of our nation, there is no room between patriotism and patronage. The American people need and deserve a public servant who is 100 percent committed to the around-the-clock safety of the American people. Unfortunately, through his actions over the course of the last several years, [and] his conduct this past month before the Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel has demonstrated a dangerous lack of judgment, lack of preparation, and lack of independence.”
    Padilla blasted Patel for possibly lying under oath during his confirmation hearing. Despite swearing that he had no role in the firing of career FBI employees, whistleblowers have exposed Patel’s direct involvement in the mass purge of law enforcement professionals. Earlier this month, Padilla demanded answers from Patel on the removal or reassignment of career law enforcement officials across the Department of Justice and the FBI.
    Padilla also warned that Patel has openly advocated for unprecedented and reckless actions, including weaponizing the Justice Department to target political opponents and journalists, profiting from conspiracy theories about a “Deep State,” promoting an “enemies list” of public servants, and even selling picture books to children to spread disinformation about the 2016 election. He also called out Patel’s alarming refusal during his confirmation hearing to commit to enforcing existing gun laws that save lives.
    “Colleagues, stretching the truth — or potentially outright lying — may score him points with President Trump, but as Director of the FBI, it will only put American lives at risk. Think about it. To all the Americans who might be watching from home: you wouldn’t put an arsonist in charge of the fire department, would you? But with Kash Patel at the top of the FBI, that’s exactly what we’d get.”
    Padilla cautioned that confirming Patel would set a “dangerous precedent,” further eroding public safety and trust in law enforcement. He urged Senate Republicans to oppose his confirmation.
    “When a loyalist FBI Director abuses the position and fails to protect the American people, it won’t just be Kash Patel that will be held accountable. It won’t just be President Trump we will try to hold accountable. It will be every member of this body who supported his nomination that will also be held accountable.”
    Earlier this month, Senator Padilla and his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee spoke out against Kash Patel’s nomination and urged their Republican colleagues to oppose him. During Patel’s confirmation hearing, Padilla raised serious concerns about his fitness to lead the FBI.
    Video of Padilla’s full remarks at today’s press conference is available here and can be downloaded here. Video of Padilla’s full floor remarks is available here and can be downloaded here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Improving Lives in the US with Comfortable, Healthy, and Energy-Efficient Air Conditioning: Miki Okiebisu

    Source: Panasonic

    Headline: Improving Lives in the US with Comfortable, Healthy, and Energy-Efficient Air Conditioning: Miki Okiebisu

    Launching New Whole-home Air Conditioning System OASYS
    Miki Okiebisu
    Panasonic Eco Systems North America (PESNA)
    Okiebisu joined the company in 2015. She began her career in sales to domestic housing manufacturers at Panasonic Ecology Systems Co., Ltd. In 2022, she transitioned to product planning and new business development for large overseas markets, focusing mainly on Asia. After relocating to the US in March 2023, she is now leading the launch of the OASYS whole-home air conditioning system, unveiled at CES 2025.

    The Key to Expansion in the US: Adaptation to Market Conditions, Housing Structures, and Business Practices

    In the US, whole-home HVAC systems that heat and cool an entire building with a single unit are the norm. However, transitioning to more efficient heat pumps and inverter-based air conditioning is essential for advancing a decarbonized society. To address this, we developed OASYS, the first whole-home air conditioning system in the US to seamlessly integrate*1 Mini Split AC, Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV), and transfer fans using DC motor-driven ventilation fans.
    *1: According to research by Heating & Ventilation A/C Company, Panasonic Corporation, as of January 8, 2025.
    As one of North America’s leading providers of ventilation fans, Panasonic launched the OASYS project in 2020 to establish a new whole-home air conditioning business. By leveraging our existing high-performance HVAC*2 products, we strive to deliver comfort, health, and energy efficiency in a single solution.
    *2: Stands for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning, a collective term for air conditioning systems.
    OASYS is more than just an air conditioning system. Its key feature is that it delivers value by integrating seamlessly with the overall home design. That is why the Concept Home, which allows builders and other B2B stakeholders in home construction to experience the OASYS concept firsthand, plays a key role in advancing the business. Since moving to the US, I have been closely involved in this initiative, which also serves as a testing ground for future products and services.

    The OASYS Concept Home in Houston, Texas. We eagerly anticipate a positive response from visitors wishing to experience it firsthand, even before its grand opening event.

    At the same time, OASYS is based on a system developed by a Japanese startup for the domestic market. Expanding it to the US requires adapting to local market conditions, housing structures, and business practices. As such, one of my crucial missions was to define component specifications, establish design guidelines, and build a solid business framework.

    Encouraged by the Belief That There Is Not Just One Correct Answer for New Challenges: Thorough Discussions on Roles, Responsibilities, and Collaboration

    Clearly explaining the key features of the OASYS system to partner companies

    The biggest challenge was overcoming the differences in business practices between Japan and the US. Although OASYS is a superior whole-home air conditioning system, in order to enhance the home’s overall performance holistically, close coordination with home construction is essential, from HVAC and energy planning to determining the placement of the mechanical room. In Japan, construction firms oversee the entire process, but in the US, tasks such as HVAC system design, energy planning, and home design are handled separately by different specialists. For that reason, not only did we have to coordinate with a wide range of partner companies, but there were also many tasks where it was unclear who was responsible for ensuring the performance of OASYS and the overall home.
    To address this, I carefully explained the OASYS system to partner companies, ensuring that all necessary steps for its implementation and installation were executed correctly. We established a solid business framework through ongoing discussions on roles, responsibilities, and collaboration. Despite the challenges, colleagues and local team members were always willing to offer support, emphasizing that there is not a single correct answer for new challenges. Their openness to discussion, along with close communication and collaboration, helped keep the project on track.

    Expanding OASYS to More Regions: Integrating with Energy Solutions
    We spend more than half our lives at home. Through OASYS, I find fulfillment in helping people enjoy both energy efficiency and comfort in their homes without compromise, enhancing their quality of life. OASYS received a great response at CES, but its true value can only be fully understood through firsthand experience. I look forward to welcoming many customers to the Concept Home to experience OASYS firsthand.

    In the US, climate, housing specifications, regulations, and industry structures vary by region. Moving forward, we will continue evaluations and discussions with local teams to deliver systems tailored to each region’s specific needs. Another key strength of the Panasonic Group is our ability to offer not just air conditioning solutions but also integrated systems that combine hot water heating and energy generation and storage. I will continue promoting collaboration across PESNA to further expand OASYS.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump is ruling like a ‘king’, following the Putin model. How can he be stopped?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Partlett, Associate Professor of Public Law, The University of Melbourne

    A month in, and it is clear even to conservatives that US President Donald Trump is attempting to fundamentally reshape the role of the American president.

    Trump and his supporters sees the natural authority of the American president in broad terms, similar to those of the Russian president, or a king. Trump, in fact, has already likened himself to a king.

    This desire to “Russify” the presidency is not an accident: Trump and many of his supporters admire the king-like power that Vladimir Putin exercises as Russian president.

    Understanding how Trump is attempting to transform presidential power is key to mobilising in the most effective way to stop it.

    Decrees by a ‘king’

    Russia’s system of government is what I call a “crown-presidential” system, which makes the president a kind of elected king.

    Two powers are central to this role.

    First, like a king, the Russian “crown-president” does not rely on an elected legislature to make policy. Instead, Putin exercises policy-making authority unilaterally via decree.

    Putin has used decrees to wage wars, privatise the economy and even to amend the constitution to lay claim to the parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since 2014.

    He has also used these decrees in a performative way, for example, by declaring pay raises for all Russian state employees without any ability to enforce it.

    Over the last month, Trump has made similar use of decrees (what the White House now terms “presidential actions”).

    He has issued scores of presidential decrees to unilaterally reshape vast swathes of American policy – far more than past presidents. Trump sees these orders as a way of both exercising and demonstrating his vast presidential power.

    Control over the bureaucracy

    Second, like a king, Putin does not allow the Russian legislature to use the law to organise the executive branch and create agencies independent of presidential control. Instead, he has unquestioned dominance over both the organisation and staffing of the executive branch. This has given him vast power to dominate politics by controlling information gathering and legal prosecutions.

    A similar push is underway in the United States. Trump has appointed key loyalists to head the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Moreover, he is seeking to restructure the executive branch by abolishing some agencies altogether and vastly reducing the size of the workforce in others.

    Can the courts stop Trump?

    Trump’s attempt to Russify the American presidency undermines the American constitutional order.

    Courts are the natural “first responders” in this kind of crisis. And many courts have blocked some of Trump’s early decrees.

    This legal response is important. But it is not enough on it own.

    First, the US Supreme Court might be more willing to accept this expansion of presidential power than lower courts. In a ruling last year, for example, the court granted the president immunity from criminal prosecution, showing itself to be sympathetic to broad understandings of executive power.

    Second, presidential decrees can be easily withdrawn and modified. This can allow Trump and his legal team to recalibrate as his decrees are challenged and find the best test cases to take to the Supreme Court.

    Third, parts of the conservative right have long argued for a far more powerful president. For instance, the idea of a “unitary executive” has been discussed in conservative circles for years. This essentially claims that the president should be able to direct and control the entire executive branch, from the bureaucracy to prosecutors to the FBI.

    These arguments are already being made to justify Trump’s actions. As Elon Musk has said, “you could not ask for a stronger mandate from the public” to reform the executive branch. These arguments will be made to courts to justify Trump’s expansion of power.

    Fourth, even if the Supreme Court does block some decrees, it is possible the White House will simply ignore these actions. We had an early glimpse of this when Trump posted that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”.

    Vice President JD Vance has also said judges “aren’t allowed” to block the president’s “legitimate power”.

    The importance of political mobilisation and messaging

    Trump’s aggressive use of presidential power is not just a constitutional crisis, it is a political one. For those seeking to resist, this is too important to just be left to the courts; it must also involve America’s key political institutions.

    The most obvious place to start is in Congress. Lawmakers must act decisively to assert the legal power granted to them in the constitution to check the power of the presidency. This would include active Congressional use of its budgeting power, as well as its oversight powers on the presidency.

    This could happen now if a few Republicans were to take a principled position on important constitutional issues, though nearly all have so far preferred to fall in line. Democrats could retake both branches of Congress in the midterm elections in 2026, though, and assert this power.

    The states can and should also act to resist this expansion of presidential power. This action could take many forms, including refusing to deploy their traditional police powers to enforce decrees they view to be unconstitutional or unlawful.

    In mobilising to defend the constitution, these institutions could appeal to the American people with more than the narrow legal argument that Trump’s acts are unconstitutional. They could also make the broader political argument that turning the American president into a Russian-style, elected king will foster a form of inefficient, unresponsive and corrupt politics.

    Or, in the words of The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, “it’s the corruption, stupid”.

    Time is of the essence. Russia shows the more time a “crown-president” is able to operate, the more entrenched this system becomes. For those hoping to preserve American democracy, the time is now for not just legal, but political resistance.

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

    ref. Trump is ruling like a ‘king’, following the Putin model. How can he be stopped? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-ruling-like-a-king-following-the-putin-model-how-can-he-be-stopped-249721

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Creative progress or mass theft? Why a major AI art auction is provoking wonder – and outrage

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Herrington, Futures Specialist, School of Cybernetics, Australian National University

    Thirty-four artworks created with artificial intelligence (AI) have gone up for sale at Christie’s in New York, in the famed auction house’s first collection dedicated to AI art.

    Christie’s says the collection aims to explore “human agency in the age of AI within fine art”, prompting viewers to question the evolving role of the artist and of creativity.

    Questions are not all the collection has prompted: there has also been a backlash. At the time of writing, more than 6,000 artists have signed an open letter calling on Christie’s to cancel the auction.

    What’s in the collection?

    Sougwen Chung’s Study 33 (2024) was created through a process that captured data from an EEG headset and a computer vision system tracking body movement and fed it to a painting robot called D.O.U.G._4.
    Sougwen Chung / Christie’s

    The Augmented Intelligence collection, up for auction from February 20 to March 5, spans work from early AI art pioneers such as Harold Cohen through to contemporary innovators such as Refik Anadol, Vanessa Rosa and Sougwen Chung.

    The showcased pieces vary widely in their use of AI. Some are physical objects, some are digital-only works – sold as non-fungible tokens or NFTs – and others are offered as both digital and physical components together.

    Some have a performance aspect, such as Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 (to be titled by AI at the conclusion of the sale).

    After generating an initial image tile, the work iteratively expands outwards, growing with each new bid in the auction. As the image evolves digitally, it is translated onto a physical canvas by an oil-painting robot. The price estimate for the work ranges from US$100 to US$1.7 million, and at the time of writing the bid sits at US$3,000.

    Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 involves art generated by AI and painted by robot as bids come in.
    Alexander Reben / Christie’s

    Claims of exploitation

    The controversy surrounding this show is not surprising. Debates over the creation of AI art have simmered ever since the technology became widely available in 2022.

    The open letter calling for the auction to be cancelled argues that many works in the exhibition use “AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license”.

    Embedding Study 1 & 2 (from the xhairymutantx series) (2024) by Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst explores the concept of ‘Holly Herndon’ in generative AI models.
    Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst / Christie’s

    The letter says:

    These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them.

    The models in question include popular image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E.

    The letter continues:

    [Christie’s] support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work.

    Copyright and cultural appropriation

    Refik Anadol’s Machine Hallucinations – ISS Dreams (2021) is a video work used an AI model trained on publicly available images taken from the International Space Station.
    Refik Anadol / Christie’s

    There are several attempts by artists to bring legal proceedings against AI companies underway. As yet, the key question remains unresolved: by training AI models on existing artworks, do AI models infringe artists’ copyright, or is this a case of fair use?

    Artists who are critical of AI are rightly concerned about losing their incomes, or their skills becoming irrelevant or outdated. They are also concerned about losing their creative community – their place in the creative ecosystem.

    Last year, Indigenous artists withdrew from a Brisbane art prize, highlighting concerns about AI and cultural appropriation.

    At the same time, many AI artists don’t use copyrighted material. Refik Anadol, for instance, has stated that his work in the Christie’s collection was made using publicly available datasets from NASA.

    How the ‘work’ of art is changing

    The Christie’s event occurs during a major shift in what it means to be an artist, and to be creative. Some participants in the show even question whether the label of “artist” is even necessary or required to make meaningful imagery and artefacts.

    Many non-artists may wonder – if AI is used, where is the real “work” of art? The answer is that many forms of work will look different in the age of AI, and creative endeavours are no exception.

    Creativity gave humans an evolutionary edge. What happens if society censors or undermines certain forms of creativity?

    Pindar Van Arman’s Emerging Faces (2017) was created via two AI agents: one attempted to generate images of faces, while the other stopped the process as soon as it recognised the image as a face.
    Pindar Van Arman / Christie’s

    Clinging to traditional ideas about how things are done ignores the bigger picture. When used thoughtfully, technology can stretch our creative potential.

    And AI cannot make art without human artists. Creating with new technologies requires context, direction, meaning, and an aesthetic sense.

    In the case of the Christie’s auction, artists are doing much more than typing in prompts. They iterate with data, refine models, and actively shape the end result.

    This evolving relationship between humans and machines reframes the creative process, with AI becoming more like a “conversational partner”.

    What now?

    Calling for the Christie’s auction to be cancelled may be shortsighted. It oversimplifies a complex issue and sidesteps deeper questions about how we should think about authorship, what authenticity means, and the evolving relationship between artists and the tools they use.

    Whether we embrace or resist AI art, the Christie’s auction pushes us to rethink artistic labour and the creative process.

    At the same time, Christie’s may need to take more care to produce collections that are sensitive to contemporary issues. Artists have real concerns about loss of work and income. A “move fast and break things” approach feels ill-suited to the thoughtfulness associated with artistic production.

    Harold Cohen’s Untitled (i23-3758) (1987) was produced with the groundbreaking AARON image-generating AI system.
    Harold Cohen / Christie’s

    Beyond protest, more education and collaboration is required overall. Artists who do not adapt to new technologies and ways of creating may be left behind.

    Equally important is ensuring AI does not diminish human agency or exploit creatives. Discussions around achieving sustainable and inclusive AI could follow other sectors focusing on equally sharing benefits and having rigorous ethical standards.

    Examples might come from the open source community (and organisations such as the Open Source Initiative), where licensing and frameworks allow contributors to benefit from collective development. And in the tech realm, some software companies (such as IBM) do stand out for their rigorous approach to ethics.

    Rather than cancelling the Christie’s auction, perhaps this is a moment for us to reimagine how we do creativity and adapt with AI.

    But are artists – and audiences – prepared for a future where the nature of being an artist, and creativity itself, is radically different?

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

    ref. Creative progress or mass theft? Why a major AI art auction is provoking wonder – and outrage – https://theconversation.com/creative-progress-or-mass-theft-why-a-major-ai-art-auction-is-provoking-wonder-and-outrage-250157

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Markey Propose 16 Amendments to Protect Massachusetts From Republican Budget Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    February 20, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – During the Senate’s consideration of the Republican budget resolution, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) proposed 16 amendments to protect Massachusetts residents from the Trump administration’s executive actions.  

    “If Republicans want to increase costs for families to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, they should have the courage to go on the record with their vote,” said Senator Warren. “Senator Markey and I are fighting back hard against Donald Trump’s attempts to make government work better for the rich and powerful and worse for everyone else.” 

    Senators Warren and Markey proposed the following amendments: 

    • An amendment supporting the reinstatement of veteran federal employees in Massachusetts who were removed for being probationary employees; 
    • An amendment to uphold the quality of housing for servicemembers in Massachusetts, including barracks; 
    • An amendment to protect the privacy of veterans in Massachusetts working for the federal government; 
    • An amendment to protect National Endowment for the Arts funding for Massachusetts; 
    • An amendment to protect public transit funding for Massachusetts; 
    • An amendment to protect PFAS removal from drinking water in Massachusetts; 
    • An amendment to protect Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) funding for Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to protect higher education funding in Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to protect offshore wind projects in Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to protect Staffing For Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants for firefighters in Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to protect funding for transportation and infrastructure projects in Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to protect Massachusetts Head Start funding;
    • An amendment to protect National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which funds important research in Massachusetts;
    • An amendment to maintain federal support for Massachusetts-based medical research institutions;
    • An amendment against funding cuts to Massachusetts health care providers; and
    • An amendment to rehire all Massachusetts Health and Human Services staff.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: 105 new affordable homes coming to the Yukon

    This is a joint release between the Government of Yukon and Government of Canada.

    The governments of Canada and Yukon, along with the City of Whitehorse and Da Daghay Development Corporation (DDDC) announced more than $37 million in funding to support the construction of 105 new affordable homes in Whitehorse.

    The announcement was made by Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Nathanial Erskine-Smith, alongside Member of Parliament for Yukon, Brendan Hanley,  Premier and Minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation, Ranj Pillai, Mayor of Whitehorse, Kirk Cameron and Chief Operating Officer for Da Daghay Development Corporation, Tiffany Eckert-Maret.

    Winter Crossing, located at 28 Olive May Way in Whitehorse, is the largest affordable housing development in the Yukon’s history. It will provide 105 new homes across seven buildings and provide affordable housing options to Yukoners. The seven buildings will have accessible units in each building, along with a mix of one and two-bedroom units. The building will be operated by the Da Daghay Development Corporation. Construction is expected to be complete in 2026. The building will be operated by the Da Daghay Development Corporation. Construction is expected to be complete in 2026.

    Funding announced today includes:

    • $33.1 million from the federal government through the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), including a $7.8 million contribution and a $25.2 million loan
    • $500,000 from the Government of Yukon, through the Yukon Housing Corporation’s Municipal Matching Rental Construction Program
    • $2.3 million from the City of Whitehorse under the Housing Development Incentive Policy
    • $1.5 million in cash and land equity from the Da Dahgay Development Corporation

    This project also received $5 million through the northern carve-out under AHF, which was previously announced in 2021, and $5 million from the Government of Yukon announced in February 2024.

    Projects receiving funding through the $20 million portion of the carve-out administered by Yukon Housing Corporation, include:

    • Watson Lake supportive housing – $5.2 million for 10 units
    • Korbo replacement building (Dawson City) – $7 million for 34 units
    • Ryder apartments replacement (Whitehorse) – $6.5 million for 23 of 45 units
    • Whistle Bend (Whitehorse) – $1.2 million for 18 units
       

    Related information:

    Visit Canada.ca/housing for the most requested Government of Canada housing inf…

    To find out more about the National Housing Strategy, please visit www.placetoc…

    Government of Yukon invests $5 million towards affordable housing in Whitehorse…

    $40 million Northern Carve Out funding for housing in Yukon announced.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-left”>
    1:05 P.M. EST
     
         MS. LEAVITT:  Hello.  Good afternoon, everybody.  I brought some heavy hitters in here with me today. 
     
    Today marks one month of President Trump’s return to the Oval Office, and there is no denying this administration is off to a historic start.  The President has already signed 73 executive orders.  That is more than double the number signed by Joe Biden and more than quadruple the number signed by Barack Obama over the same period.
     
    These executive orders have ended burdensome regulations; sealed the border; unleashed our domestic energy sector; eliminated divisive DEI from our federal government; stopped the weaponization of government; cut waste, fraud, and abuse; reinstituted “America First” trade and foreign policies; and ultimately restored common sense. 
     
    The President also signed the Laken Riley Act into law, which ensures ICE will detain illegal aliens arrested or charged with theft or violence. 
     
    As of today, the Senate has already confirmed 18 Cabinet-level nominees, which is more than at this point under the Obama administration in 2009 and more than double the pace of the Biden administration in 2021. 
     
    And today, we expect Kash Patel to be confirmed as the next director of the FBI. 
     
    We are proud to announce that the president will host his first official Cabinet meeting here at the White House next Wednesday, February 26th. 
     
    In just four weeks, President Trump has already hosted the leaders of Israel, Japan, Jordan, and India.  And next Monday, the President will host France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, and on Thursday, the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, will visit the White House as well. 
     
    As you all know, over the past month, the President has taken questions from the press — all of you — nearly every single day, sometimes on multiple different occasions in the same day, on any topic any of you wish to talk about. 
     
    President Trump set the tone on this approach immediately when he took more than 12 times the questions in his first few hours in office as Joe Biden did in his entire first week. 
     
    Yesterday, we hosted a local media row here at the White House with television and radio stations from across the country that reached up to 60 million viewers and listeners. 
     
    In our ongoing pursuit of transparency, on this one-month celebration, I am thrilled to bring three of my colleagues and our policy experts here at the White House to further recap this incredible first month of accomplishments in greater detail.
     
    We have Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller; the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett; and our National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. 
     
    I will hand it over to them.  They will deliver brief remarks on the accomplishments of this administration in the first month, and then we will open it up to Q and A.  When we open up the Q and A portion, I do ask, for the sake of efficiency in this room, that you direct your question to the principal you seek an answer from.  And I will call on you in this room.
     
    But first I will let them roll through their remarks.  And first up, I’ll turn it over to Stephen Miller.
     
    MR. MILLER:  Thank you.  It’s great to be back.
     
    And I want to just thank you all for joining today our one-month celebration of the most historic opening to a presidency in American history.  No president comes close to what Donald Trump has achieved over just the last 30 days.
     
    He has packed eight years of transformative action restoring this nation, restoring our laws, restoring fairness, restoring economic opportunity, restoring national security in just one month.  No one in this country has ever seen anything like it. 
     
    And when you look at the consequentiality and the significance and the transformative nature of the actions he’s taking, it truly defies description.  For example, in just one area, this nation has been plagued and crippled by illegal discrimination: diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.  It strangled our economy.  It has undermined public safety.  It has made every aspect of life more difficult, more painful, and less safe. 
     
    He has ended all DEI across the federal government.  He has terminated all federal workers involved in promulgating these unlawful policies.  He has ended diversity, equity, and inclusion in all federal contracting.  He has restored merit as the cornerstone of all federal policy; restored the full, fair, impartial enforcement of our federal civil rights laws for the first time in generations; and he has cracked down on individuals across this government and nonprofits who have engaged in illegal racial discrimination against the American people. 
     
    This includes making clear to every educational institution in this country that ending diversity, equity, and inclusion, ending unlawful race discrimination is a precondition of receiving federal funds. 
     
    He has also saved women’s sports by ending the participation of men in women’s sports.  He has ended radical gender ideology across the entire federal government, and he’s pressured the private sector to also end and combat radical gender ideology.  He’s reestablished the scientific and biological truth that there are only two sexes in this country — male and female — that those are biologically based determinations.  They are not based and can never be based on gender identity. 
     
    That includes rooting out of the Department of Defense all DEI policies, all critical race theory, all gender madness, and once again having a military that is focused solely and exclusively on readiness, preparedness, and lethality.
     
    As I’m sure Kevin will talk about more, of course, he has undertaken a historic cost-cutting effort across the federal government, launching the first-ever Department of Government Efficiency, uncovering corruption on a scale that we never thought imaginable, terminating every single federal worker that we — that we have found to be engaged in the corruption and theft and the waste of taxpayer dollars, and already saving $50 billion in a single year, which over a 10-year period would be $500 billion.  Just think about how vast and enormous that sum is. 
     
    Of course, as you all know, he has renamed the Gulf of Mexico to its correct and proper name: the Gulf of America.  He has renamed Mount Denali into Mount McKinley, part of a historic effort to restore patriotism and national pride all across this land. 
     
    He has ended the weaponization of the federal government, restored the Department of Justice to its true mission of combating threats to this nation and keeping the American people safe. 
     
    He has ended all federal censorship of free speech.  This has been one of the greatest crises that has plagued this nation.  Years and years and years, the federal government violating the First Amendment to take away Americans’ right of free speech — President Trump has ended that.  And he has demanded that all federal workers, all law enforcement cease any effort to intimidate the rights of Americans or to police their speech. 
     
    He has also restored the death penalty at the Department of Justice, including for illegal aliens who commit murder, including for those who murder cops, and including for all of those who threaten Americans with heinous acts of violence.  The death penalty is back.  Law and order is back.  The streets are being made safe once again. 
     
    On the public health front, he has launched the nation’s first-ever commission — the MAHA Commission — Make America Healthy Again, following the historic confirmation of RFK Jr., to finally uncover the true root causes of the public health crisis in this country, the childhood disease epidemic in this country, the spiraling rates of pediatric cancer and devastating childhood sickness. 
     
    He has finally created a situation where the federal heal- — health agencies in this country will be focused on preventing disease, on keeping children from getting sick in the first place, not sentencing them to a lifetime in and out of hospitals, suffering needlessly, when we can find ways to prevent this epidemic of illness. 
     
    Then, of course, on homeland security.  Today, it is officially the law of the land at the conclusion of the congressional notification process that six Mexican cartels and two transnational gangs — Tren de Aragua, or TDA, and MS-13 — so eight organizations in total — are now formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations, which means that every single member of those organizations who operates on U.S. soil is now, as a legal matter, a terrorist, and they will be treated as terrorists. 
     
    This is a sea change in U.S. policy.  And this means the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with the rest of U.S. law enforcement and the Department of Defense, are now operating in a legal reality where these cartels are recognized as terrorists, and there will be a whole-of-government effort to remove these terrorists from our soil and to degrade their ability to threaten or undermine any American security or sovereignty interests.
     
    Border crossings since the day he took office are down 95 percent.  I think it’s almost impossible to even describe the scale and scope of that achievement.  President Trump, within days of taking office, cut border crossings 95 percent. 
     
    And those few who have dared to cross are being either prosecuted or deported.  They’re either facing significant jail time for trafficking, smuggling, harboring, aiding, impeding, or they’re being immediately removed from our soil.  Either way, at the end of the process, they are going home. 
     
    He has reimplemented Remain in Mexico, and he has obtained historic cooperation from foreign countries all around the world in accepting their deportees back. 
     
    And he has used the United States military to fully seal the southern border with a historic deployment of both active duty and National Guard troops, resumed the building of infrastructure.  He has opened up Guantanamo Bay, and he’s using military aircraft to carry out deportations all across this country. 
     
    And ICE is joining with ATF, DEA, and FBI to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.  The criminals are going home.  The border is sealed shut.  America is safe, sovereign, proud, and free.  We are a nation that everyone in the world understands all across this planet: You do not come here illegally.  You will not get in.  You will go to jail.  You will go home.  You will not succeed. 
     
    This is the biggest and most successful change in any area of law enforcement that this nation has ever seen, and he did it in under one month. 
     
    Thank you.
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Should I go?
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Yes, yes.
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Well, thank you, Karoline.  Thank you, Stephen. 
     
    You know, one of the things that President Trump cares most about is job creation.  And it was about seven years ago I had the honor of joining you in this room for the first time, and it looks like we’ve created a lot more jobs in the last month.  Look at how many people are here.  I — my estimate is about 180 but — but I didn’t count. 
     
    So, thank you.  It’s really an honor to be back here.  I think that I just want to go over a few things and then hand it off to Mike. 
     
    The first thing is that the President has told us to prioritize fighting inflation, and he had to do that because, as you know, President Biden let inflation get completely out of control.  And he did it with policies that made no sense.  They made no sense. 
     
    You know, a lot of times, you people say to us — our friends, the journalists — you know, “Why are you doing that?”  But — but, you know, I like to think, “Why did they do that?  Why did they spend so much money and then — why did the Fed print so much money so that we had inflation as high as we’ve ever seen since Jimmy Carter?  So, why did they do that?”
     
    So, we’re addressing inflation.  We didn’t have to address it in the first term, because it was always in the 1s, almost always.  But we’re going to get it back there. 
     
    And how are we doing it?  Well, we’re doing it with a plan that President Trump and I and others have talked about in the Oval that involves, like, every level of fighting inflation. 
     
    First, the macroeconomic level.  We’re cutting spending.  We’re cutting spending in negotiations with people on the Hill.  We’re cutting spending with the advice of our IT consultant, Elon Musk.  And then we’re also looking into supply-side things, like restoring Trump’s tax cuts, maybe even expensing new factories so that there is an explosion of supply.  If you have an explosion of supply and a reduction in government demand, then inflation goes way down. 
     
    And then, one of the things that you want to say is “Well, when are you going to see it?”  Well, the first thing that you’ll see when the markets believe that we’re going to get inflation under control is that the 10-year Treasury rate goes down, because that’s how they think about future expected inflation. 
     
    And so, we’re still going to see some memory of Biden’s inflation.  It’s not going to go away in a month.  But the 10-year Treasury before the last Consumer Price Index had dropped about 40 basis points.  Forty basis points because markets were optimistic about our ability to fight inflation. 
     
    Forty basis points is kind of not a fun thing to say.  I — economists talk that way.  I apologize.  But the way to think about it is, for a typical mortgage, if that affects the mortgage rate, then it’s going to save a typical family buying a house about a thousand bucks a year, and that’s just in our first month. 
     
    Okay.  The second thing we’ve done is we’ve had a lot of trade talks.  In fact, I was just meeting a minister from Mexico with Howard Lutnick just a couple of hours ago.  And we’re talking about reciprocal trade, and we’re also talking about the fentanyl crisis. 
     
    And so, reciprocal trade is about our government treating other governments the way they treat us.  We want trade to be fair.  It turns out that Americans have been disadvantaged by foreign governments over and over, and President Trump wants it to stop.  And the fact that struck me as most noticeable, when I started to look at what President Trump was asking us to do, is that last year — last year — we have data — U.S. companies paid $370 billion in taxes to foreign governments — $370 billion.  Last year, foreign multinationals paid us $57 billion in taxes. 
     
    We have one quarter of world GDP.  They have three quarters of world GDP.  And we’re paying $370.  They’re paying $57.  This is not reciprocal.  We’re going to try — or we’re going to fix it. 
     
    The other thing that we’ve done is we’ve had an all-of-the-above energy approach that’s led by Doug Burgum and Chris and a really large team — EPA — and we’ve already made so many actions that are going to affect the price of energy and lower inflation. 
     
    We’ve opened up 625 million acres to energy exploration.  We’ve cut 50 years of red tape that makes it so you can’t have permits.  And we’ve even made it so that when you go home, if you get a new one, then you can take a shower or flush a toilet or read under a light bulb.  We’re doing that too. 
     
    So — so, finally, let’s just think about, like, the facts that we can see right now that we think are awesome.  So, guess what?  Small-business optimism is — has go- — gone up by the most ever since President Trump came in.  ISM, which is the measure of what’s going on in manufacturing, it’s expanding again for the first time in years.  CEO confidence is the highest it’s been in years.  And the reason — the reason people are thinking this is that our policies give people cause for optimism. 
     
    And then I want to reiterate what Stephen Miller said, because it’s so important — and it’s so important for financial markets to start to digest this — that if, say, the Treasury secretary or the — any Cabinet secretary, with Elon Musk, is able to find some savings — say, $100 billion — well, in CBO land, that’s actually, like, about 10 times that or maybe 12 times that over a 10-year window. 
     
    And so, when you’re thinking about the negotiations right now over reconciliation and thinking about, well, $4 trillion, $5 trillion, well, those numbers, in terms of the savings, are going to end up being small because of all the waste that we’re finding. 
     
    And so, we’re incredibly optimistic about the future of inflation and the future of our economy.  And we’re optimistic because we’re making so much progress so far, and we already see it in market prices. 
     
    And, with that, I’ll hand it off to Mike. 
     
    MR. WALTZ:  All right.  Thanks, Kevin. 
     
    Well, good afternoon.  What a month and what a sea change in our — in our foreign policy.  In addition to what we’re doing on the border and restoring American sovereignty, in addition to what we’re doing in our economy and the job creation and the inflation reduction, we are bringing the world back to where it was at the end of President Trump’s first term, which is a world of peace, prosperity, and — and looking forward and getting us out of the chaos that we’ve just seen over the last four years. 
     
    So, over the last month, just to name a few, I had the honor of sitting in the Oval Office as President Trump spoke with President Putin and then immediately spoke with President Zelenskyy, and both of them said only President Trump could bring both sides to the table, and only President Trump could stop the horrific fighting that has been going on now for the better part of four years and that only President Trump could drive the world back to peace.  Both of those leaders said that in back-to-back calls.
     
    And, of course, we just had our historic talks mediated by our — our good friends and partners, Saudi Arabia — we give great thanks to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for hosting — and sat down for the first time in years with the Russians and talked about a path forward with peace.
     
    On top of that and one of the things that led to that was a tremendous co- — confidence-building measure that we had with the release of Marc Fogel.  I’ll remind everyone, the last time that we had an American released from the Russians, either we gave up a deadly spy; pressured our allies to give up a lethal killer; or we released, under the Biden administration, the world’s most notorious arms dealer, Viktor Bout, who, by the way, had one of his main clients for arms the cartels in — in Mexico and Central America. 
     
    We gave up none of that.  This was released as a confidence-building measure, working with our great Middle East Envoy, Steve Witkoff, and our secretary of State as a first step towards opening these talks and then moving forward towards peace. 
     
    On top of that, we’ve secured, just in a month, the return of a dozen — 12 — American hostages from Russia, from Bulgaria, from Venezuela, the Taliban, and Hamas.  Excuse me, that’s from Belarus, not Bulgaria. 
     
    We also had — for the first time in quite some time, we took out a senior leader of ISIS, an international financier and recruiter that the military had been trying to take out for quite some time and — and wasn’t able to do so, frankly, because of a bureaucratic approval process.  President Trump said, “Take him out.”  And that ISIS financier and leader is no longer on this Earth. 
     
    We’ve also taken action to eliminate other terrorist organizations in the Middle East.  We drove — before the President was even in office, he started talking consequences for people that would hold Americans. 
     
    Heretofore, there’s been nothing but upside.  You take an American, you get some better deal.  You take another one, maybe you get a better deal.  No more.  There is now nothing but downside for taking Americans illegally, either as hostages or illegal detainees. 
     
    And when President Trump sent a very clear message across the Middle East, but particularly to Hamas, that there would be all hell to pay, we suddenly saw a breakthrough.  And now we just saw the release of yet another group of hostages.  There have been dozens now, including two Americans that we’ve seen once again reunited with their families. 
     
    As part of the talks with King Abdullah, he offered — and — and I think the entire world has graciously accepted — to take 2,000 sick children, cancer patients, and others out of Gaza.  As a humanitarian — as a humanitarian gesture, 2,000 Gazans will come out of that hellhole that it is, that wasteland that Gaza is right now, with unexploded ordnance, with debris everywhere, with no sewage, with no water.  And — and President Trump has — has put forward a plan to deal with the practical reality that is 1.8 million Gazans now — now truly suffering.
     
    And then, you know, just to bring it back to our own hemisphere, we’ve seen literally, in the last month — after years of national security experts, the generals in charge, and others testifying and ringing the alarm bells about — about the Chinese Communist Party’s presence in our own hemisphere, particularly in the Panama Canal, we’re seeing the leadership of Panama step away from the Belt and Road program, move away from China and back towards the United States, and even enter into talks and — and other negotiations about addressing the ports on either side of the canal. 
     
    And then, finally, last but not least, we’ve had four world leaders in the White House, in the Oval Office.  We’ve had the prime minister of Japan, the prime minister of India, the king of — of Jordan, and, of course, the prime minister of Israel just in the last four weeks.  And next week, we’ll have the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and we’ll have the president of France, Macron. 
     
    So, President Trump is on what we call Trump warp speed.  We are all — we are all honored to be really serving under — under his leadership and his vision.  And truly, you know, when we all say — and the President himself say — says, he is a president of peace.  He is a president focused on restoring stability.  I think the entire world saw what the world would look like without strong American leadership in the last four years.
     
    And it’s truly been an honor to get us back to where we were and back on track under President Trump’s leadership. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Thank you, Mike. 
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Mm-hmm.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  I’m sure you’re very eager to ask questions of these very smart people working very hard on behalf of the president. 
     
    We do have somebody in our new media seat today.  We have John Stoll, who is the head of news at X.  As you all know — you’re all on X — it’s home to hundreds of millions of users, a large contingent of independent journalists and news organizations across geographies and political spectrums.  And at the same time, X remains the go-to platform for many legacy news outlets.  And I know, as I mentioned, many of the reporters in this room use X to attract eyeballs to your work. 
     
    Prior to joining X, John spent two decades in journalism, including several years as an editor at The Wall Street Journal.  We are excited to have him in the briefing room today.
     
    John, we’ll let you kick it off.  And as I said at the top, please direct your question to the individual up here who you’d like an answer from. 
     
    John, why don’t you begin.
     
    Q    All right.  Thank you very much.  I am sitting in for a thriving ecosystem of journalists, independent and — and emerging news organizations who do depend on X for publicity, for a business model.  And so, I look forward to seeing many of them in this seat in months and years to come. 
     
    I also thank you, Karoline, for opening this seat up to new media.  It — it really is a testament not only to your open-mindedness but also to innovation that you’d actually think about, you know, folks that are not traditionally credentialed to be in this room to be in this room and to not only have a question but also to witness — you know, this is at a very important intersection of power and the free press.
     
    And so, just the ability to witness this and — and be part of it, it brings everybody’s game up.  So, thank you for that. 
     
    I think this is for Mike Waltz.  My question is about Ukraine.
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Sure.
     
    Q    For about more than 10 years, I’ve been fascinated, like all — like many, with what’s going on.  I was in Northern Europe working out of the Baltics when Crimea was annexed and was — a lot — a lot of this came on Twitter.  The platform used to be known as Twitter.  Was — a lot of European leaders would — would talk about their disappointment and — and solidarity with Ukraine, but when it came to actually doing something, it felt like they were passing a hot potato and sent it over the Atlantic. 
     
    I wonder how much of what we’re seeing right now out of the administration and President Trump is a call to Europe and the European leaders and allies that we’ve traditionally had to pick up that hot potato and — and start doing something a little bit more concrete to win and preserve the peace in Ukraine. 
     
    The second question I have is — it — it’s related — is there’s been some — a lot of speculation that President Trump and the administration might be manipulated by Pre- — by Vladimir Putin.  I wonder if you can just talk a little bit about the administration’s posture —
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Yeah.
     
    Q    — and your confidence in the competence of this administration to d- — go toe to toe with Vladimir Putin. 
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Well, if there’s an- — I’ll take the l- — second question first.  If there’s anybody in this world that can go toe to toe with Putin, that could go toe to toe with Xi, that could go toe to toe with Kim Jong Un — and we could keep going down the list — it’s Donald J. Trump.  He is the dealmaker in chief.  There is no question that he is the commander in chief. 
     
    And I, for one — and I think all Americans and around the world should have no doubt about his ability to not only handle Putin but to handle the complexity of driving this war to an end. 
     
    And then on your first piece on Europe, I’ll take you back to 2014.  You’re right.  There was a lot of hand-wringing in Europe and not a lot of action.  There was also a lot of hand-wringing here in Washington under the Obama administration and not a lot of action.  They literally threw blankets at the problem. 
     
    And so, I’ll remind everyone that Putin had, you know, some type of conflict, invasion, or issue with their neighbor under President Bush, with Georgia; under President Obama, with Ukraine in 2014; not under President Trump, 45; and again with President Biden in 2022.  The war should have been deterred.  The war should have never happened, and I have no doubt it would not have happened under President Trump and will stop under President — President Trump again. 
     
    But I just want to push back on this notion of our European allies not being consulted as we’ve entered into this process.  I already mentioned the immediate phone call President Trump made to President Zelenskyy.  He has talked to President Macron of France repeatedly last week.  President Macron convened European leaders and then is coming here on Monday.  Prime Minister Starmer is coming next Thursday. 
     
    We’ve also — I’ve talked to every one of my national security — national security advisor counterparts across — across the spectrum in Europe.  I’ve talked to Secretary-General Rutte, the — the leader of NATO, the secretary-general of NATO.  We have repeatedly — oh, by the way, we had half our Cabinet — seven Cabinet officials, including the vice president, at the Munich Security Conference, all engaging, all listening, and all making sure our allies were heard. 
     
    However, we’ve also made it clear for years — decades, even — that it is unacceptable that the United States and the United States taxpayer continues to bear the burden not only of the cost of the war in Ukraine but of the defense of — of Europe.  We fully support our NATO Allies.  We fully support the Article 5 commitment.  But it’s time for our European allies to step up. 
     
    And one of the things that Secretary-General Rutte said on our call was this last couple of weeks have been a real wake-up call.  And I asked him, “What have you been missing the last couple of years?” 
     
    The fact that we are going to enter into a NATO summit this June with a third of our NATO Allies still not meeting the 2 percent minimum, a commitment they made a decade ago — literally a decade ago — with a war on their doorstep — the largest war that they’re all extremely concerned about — but yet it’s “Well, somebody else needs to pay.  We’ve got other domestic priorities.”  It’s unacceptable.  President Trump has made that clear. 
     
    And the minimum needs to be met.  We need to be at 100 percent in — this June at the NATO summit.  And then let’s talk about exceeding it, which what — is what President Trump has been talking about, with 5 percent of GDP. 
     
    Europe needs to step up for their own defense as a partner.  And we can be friends and allies and have those tough conversations. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Great.  Peter.
     
    Q    Thank you, Karoline.  I have a Ukraine one and a DOGE one.  Who can talk DOGE?
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Stephen, go ahead.
     
    Q    Well, so — so, Stephen, we’re hearing about these DOGE dividend checks that would be 20 percent back to taxpayers, 20 percent to pay down the debt.  Sixty percent is left.  Who gets that?
     
    MR. MILLER:  Well, the way that it works is when you achieve savings, you can either return it to taxpayers, you can return it to our debtors, or it can be cycled into next year’s budget, and then it just lowers the overall baseline for next year.  So, in other words, you can just transfer it into the next fiscal window and then lower the overall spending level.  And that means that you can achieve a permanent savings that way, and that reduces the deficit. 
     
    Q    And when is it that people might see those checks?
     
    MR. MILLER:  Well, this is all going to be worked on through the reconciliation process with Congress that’s going underway right now, as you’ve seen.  The Senate is moving a bill.  The House is moving a bill.  The president has great confidence in both chambers to deliver on his priorities. 
     
    I would just take this opportunity to note that President Trump has made a historic commitment to the working class of this country to fight for a major tax relief and major price relief.  And cutting spending, as DOGE is doing, and cutting taxes is the key to delivering on both of those promises.  And President Trump is resolutely committed to doing both. 
     
    Q    Thank you.  And on Ukraine.  I guess, this is for Mike.
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Sure. 
     
    Q    After the president’s post on Truth Social yesterday, need to know: Who does he think is more responsible for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin or Zelenskyy?
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Well, look, his — his goal, Peter, is to bring this war to an end, period.  And there has been ongoing fighting on both sides.  It is World War I-style trench warfare. 
     
    His frustration with President Zelenskyy is — that you’ve heard — is multifold.  One, there needs to be a deep appreciation for what the American people, what the American taxpayer, what President Trump did in — in his first term, and what we’ve done since.  So, some of the rhetoric coming out of Kyiv, frankly, and — and insults to President Trump were unacceptable.  Number one. 
     
    Number two, our own secretary of Treasury personally made the trip to offer the Ukrainians what is — can only be described as a historic opportunity — that is for America to coinvest with Ukraine in their minerals, in their resources, to truly grow the pie. 
     
    So, case in point, there’s a foundry that processes aluminum in Ukraine.  It’s — it’s been damaged.  It’s not at its current capacity.  If that is restored, it would account for America’s entire imports of aluminum for an entire year — that one foundry.
     
    There are tremendous resources there.  Not only is that long-term security for Ukraine, not only do we help them grow the pie with investments, but, you know, we do have an obligation to the American taxpayer in helping them recoup the hundreds of billions that ha- — that have occurred. 
     
    So, you know, rather than enter — enter into some constructive conversations about what that deal should be going forward, we got a lot of rhetoric in the media that was — that was incredibly unfortunate. 
     
    And I could just tell you, Peter, you know, as a veteran, as somebody who’s been in combat, this war is horrific.  And I think we’ve lost sight of that, of the literally thousands of people that are dying a day, families that are going without the next generation. 
     
    And I find it kind of, you know, frankly, ridiculous.  So many people in Washington that were just demanding, pounding the table for a ceasefire in Gaza are suddenly aghast that the president would demand one and both sides come to the table when it talks to — when it comes to Ukraine, a war that has been arguably far greater in — in scope and scale and far more dangerous in terms of global escalation to U.S. security.
     
    Q    And I do have one for Karoline.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Sure.
     
    Q    Does President Trump have a bet with Trudeau about this USA-Canada hockey game tonight?  (Laughter.)  And when there is a big hockey game on, is the president watching for the goals or for the fights?
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  (Laughs.)  Probably both.  I think he’s watching for the United States to win tonight.  I know he talked to the USA hockey team this morning.  He talked to the players after their morning practice, around 10 o’clock.  And I also spoke to some folks from that team after.  They were jubilant over President Trump’s comments to the team.  I believe they’re going to put out a video of that call. 
     
    So, he looks forward to watching the game tonight, and we look forward to the United States beating our soon-to-be 51st state, Canada.  (Laughter.)
     
    Bloomberg, go ahead. 
     
    Q    My question is for Mike Waltz.  Can you give us a readout of Kellogg’s meeting with Zelenskyy that just wrapped up?  And, in particular, Zelenskyy publicly rejected this deal about the rare earth minerals.  Where — where does that stand?
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Well, we’re going to continue to have — he needs to come back to the table, and we’re going to continue to have discussions about where that deal is going. 
     
    Again, we have an obligation to the taxpayer.  I think this is an opportunity.  The president thinks this is an opportunity for Ukraine going forward.  There can be, in my view, nothing better for Ukraine’s future and for their security than — than to have the United States invested in their prosperity long-term.  And then a key piece of this has also been security guarantees. 
     
    Look, the — the reality that we’re talking about here is: Is it in Ukraine’s interest?  Is it in Europe’s interest?  It certainly isn’t in Russia’s interest or in the American people’s interest for this war to grind on forever and ever and ever. 
     
    So, a key part of his conversation was helping President Zelenskyy understand this war needs to come to an end.  This kind of open-ended mantra that we’ve had under the Biden administration, that’s over.  And I think a lot of people are having a hard time accepting that.
     
    And then the other piece is there’s been discussions from Prime Minister Starmer and also President Macron about European-led security guarantees.  We welcome that.  We’ve been asking Europe to step up and secure its own prosperity, safety, and security.  So, we certainly welcome that. 
     
    And we certainly welcome more European assistance.  As I told my counterparts, “Come to the table with more, if — if you want a bigger seat at the table.”  And we’ve been asking for that for quite some time. 
     
    Q    And has Russia pushed for sanctions in your talks with them?  And have you consulted with international partners and allies about potentially rolling back sanctions in these negotiations to end the war?
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Those — the talks with — with our Russian counterparts — both with my counterpart, the national security advisor; Secretary Rubio’s counterpart, the Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Lavrov — you know, it — it really were — was quite broad, focused on what is the goals for our broader relationship, but very clear that the fighting has to stop to get to any of those brighter goals. 
     
    And as a first step, we’re just going to do some commonsense things, like restore the — the ability of both of our embassies to function. 
     
    And, again, you know, this is — this was common sense.  In — in foreign policy world, they call it “shuttle diplomacy.”  We have to talk to both sides in order to get to both sides to the table, and both sides have said only President Trump could do that. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Diana.
     
    Q    Thank you.  And my question is for Mike Waltz.  (Laughter.)
     
    MR. WALTZ:  All right.
     
    Q    The president has called Zelenskyy a dictator.  Does he view Putin as a dictator? 
     
    And does he want Zelenskyy out of power?  I know he’s called for elections. 
     
    And then, thirdly, the head of the Defense Committee in Ukraine’s parliament just has claimed that the U.S. has stopped selling weapons to Ukraine.  Is that true?
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Well, most of our weapons that have gone to Ukraine have been part of a drawdown authority, where we’ve literally taken them out of our stocks and then, eventually, through appropriations, started buying them again to refill our stocks. 
     
    I’ll, you know, just state that there has been a lag in a lot of that process.  So, many of our stocks, as we look at our operations around the world, are becoming more depleted.  That’s one of the reasons many people have had a lot of concern about: When does this end?  How much is it going to take?  How many lives will be lost?  How much will we be — how much will we spend? 
     
    As a member of Congress, we repeatedly asked the Biden administration those questions, and we never got a satisfactory answer. 
     
    Look, President Trump is obviously very frustrated right now with President Zelenskyy — the fact that — that he hasn’t come to the table, that he hasn’t been willing to take this opportunity that we have offered.  I think he eventually will get to that point, and I hope so very quickly.
     
    But President Trump is — as we made clear to our Russian counterparts, and I want to make clear today — he’s focused on stopping the fighting and moving forward.  And we could argue all day long about what’s happened in the past. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Reagan.
     
    Q    Thanks.  I have a question for Stephen —
     
    (Cross-talk.)
     
    Q    — and a question for Mike.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Excuse me, I just called on Reagan.  Reagan, go ahead. 
     
    Q    I have a question for Stephen and a question for Mike. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Sure.
     
    Q    Stephen, I can start with you.  There have been reports —
     
    MR. MILLER:  Thank you.
     
    Q    — that Trump is unhappy with the rate of deportations and he wants them to be higher.  Is the president happy with the rate of deportations, and are there any plans to speed up the process?
     
    MR. MILLER:  Well, first of all, we all appreciate the encouragement from the media to deport as many illegal aliens as humanly possible.  So, thank you. 
     
    And I will promise you that the full might of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and every element and instrument of national power will be used to remove, with speed, all criminal illegals from the soil of the United States of America, to enforce final removal orders, and to ensure that this country is for American citizens and those who legally belong in this country.
     
    We inherited an ICE that was completely shuttered.  We inherited a Department of Homeland Security whose sole mission was to resettle illegal aliens within the United States of America. 
     
    In 30 days, the president sealed the border shut, declared the cartels to be terrorist organizations, has increased ICE deportations to levels not seen in decades, and we are shortly on the verge of achieving a pace and speed of deportations this country has never before seen. 
     
    Thank you. 
     
    Q    And Mike.
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Mm-hmm.
     
    Q    There have been reports that there’s some underground opposition to Trump’s pick for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby.  Have you or anyone from the administration been personally lobbying senators to support Elbridge Colby? 
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Look, I’ve worked with Bridge Co- — Colby in the past.  He has the president’s full support to be the Undersecretary of policy, which will be a critical policy arm for Secretary Hegseth going forward that will implement a lot of these policies. 
     
    And — and really, that’s — that’s been the extent of it.  I think there’s been a lot of kind of, you know, breathless — I don’t know — back-and-forth in the — in the press, but we’re full speed ahead to get the president’s team in place so we can implement his America First policy. 
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Thank you.  Mike has spoken pretty extensively.  Does anybody have questions for Stephen or for Mr. Hassett?
     
    Q    I do.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Nobody wants to talk about the economy?  (Laughter.)
     
    (Cross-talk.)
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Sure. 
     
    Q    IRS.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  IRS.  Okay.  Go ahead.
     
    Q    And this would be for either one of you.  So, we have reported, several other outlets have reported that about 3,500 people are due to be — lose their jobs at the IRS by the end of the week.  If the goal of these spending cuts across the federal government has been to reduce the debt, why impose some of the deepest cuts we’ve seen so far at the agency responsible for raising revenue for the federal government?
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Well, I think our objective is to make sure that the employees that we pay are being productive and effective.  And there are many, many — more than 100,000 people working to collect taxes, and not all of them are fully occupied.  And the Treasury secretary is studying the matter and feels like 3,500 is a small number and probably can get bigger, especially as we improve the IT at the IRS.
     
    And so — so, I think that it’s absolutely something that is on the table for good reasons.  And the point is that — don’t just talk about the IRS.  Talk about all of government, that there are so many places — I live in D.C.; you maybe live in D.C. — where you never — there — nobody — nobody is going into the buildings.  People aren’t commuting because nobody is doing their job.  We look back and we see that there are all these people doing two jobs while they’re getting a government payroll — on the payroll. 
     
    So, the point is, we’re fixing that, and the IRS is a small part of that picture. 
     
    Q    So, you’re saying that everybody who’s being let go was doing a bad job?
    MR. HASSETT:  I’m saying that we’re studying every agency and deciding who to let go and why, and we’re doing so very rationally with a lot of support from analysis. 
     
    Q    Because we’re being told by a lot of people who have been let go at other agencies that they were told they were being dismissed because of poor performance, when, in some cases, they haven’t even had a performance review yet because they’ve only been on the job a couple of months. 
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Yeah, I’ve never seen a person who was laid off for poor performance say that they were performing poorly.  (Laughter.)  Okay?
    Q    Karoline.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Good point.  Sure, Kaitlan.
     
    Q    I have a question.  I’ll start with you, Kevin Hassett.  Thank you for being here.  And then I’ve got a question for Mr. Waltz.
     
    On these potential checks that you might send out from DOGE, is there a concern, as you’re thinking through this, that they could be inflationary?
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Oh, absolutely not, because imagine if we don’t spend government money and we give it back to people, then the — you know, if they spend it all, then you’re even.  But they’re probably going to save a lot of it, in which case, you’re reducing inflation. 
     
    Q    Okay.  So, you’re not —
     
    MR. HASSETT:  And also, when the government spends a lot, that’s what creates inflation.  We learned that from Joe Biden.  And so, if we reduce government spending, then that’s — you know, reduces inflation.  And if you give people money, then they’re going to save a bunch of it.  And — and when they save it, then that also reduces demand and reduces inflation. 
     
    Q    Okay.  So, you’re not worried about it. 
     
    MR. HASSETT:  No, I’m not.
     
    Q    And, Mr. Waltz, to follow up on Peter’s question, you wrote in an op-ed in the fall of 2023 that, quote, “Putin is to blame, certainly, like al Qaeda was to blame for 9/11.”
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Mm-hmm.
     
    Q    Do you still feel that way now, or do you share the president’s assessment, as he says Ukraine is to blame for the start of this war?
     
    MR. WALTZ:  Well, it shouldn’t surprise you that I share the president’s assessment on all kinds of issues.  What I wrote as a Member of Congress is — was as a former Member of Congress. 
     
    Look, what I share the president’s assessment on is that the war has to end.  And what comes with that?  What comes with that should be, at some point, elections.  What comes with that should be peace.  What comes with that is prosperity that we’ve just offered in this natural resources and economic partnership arrangement: an end to the killing and European security and security for the world.  The President is not only determined to do that in Europe, he’s determined to do it in the Middle East. 
     
    And just a few months ago, we had an administration that had tried for 15 months, week after week, sitting with you here, and couldn’t get us to a ceasefire, couldn’t get our hostages out.  Now we’re at that point.  We’re back to the maximum pressure on Iran.
     
    And we will — we have just begun, and we will drive towards a ceasefire and all of those other steps.  I’m not going to pre-negotiate or get ahead of the sequencing of all of that.  It’s a very delicate situation. 
     
    But this is a president of peace.  And who here would argue against peace?
     
    Q    Okay.  So, you do share that assessment. 
     
    And can I follow up.  In 2017 —
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  No.  Go ahead, Jordan.
     
    Q    — then-President Trump —
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Go ahead, Jordan. 
     
    Q    Can I just follow up really quickly?
     
    Q    Thank you.  So —
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  You just had two questions, Kaitlan.
     
    Q    May I — can I just —
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Jordan, go ahead. 
     
    Q    Mr. — Mr. Hassett —
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Thank you.
     
    Q    I have an important follow-up for Mike Waltz.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Jordan, go ahead.  Go ahead.
     
    Q    So, Mr. Hassett, you were speaking about tariff revenue, and you also addressed a question about the R- — IRS.  President Trump has spoken about replacing income tax with tariff revenue, especially with all this waste, fraud, and abuse that we’re seeing cut.  Is that a possibility?
     
    MR. HASSETT:  Absolutely.  And, in fact, if you think about the China tariff revenue that we’re estimating is coming in from the 10 percent that we just added, plus the de minimis thing, that it’s between $500 billion and a trillion dollars over 10 years, is our estimate.  And that’s something that is outside of the reductions that markets are seeing through the negotiations up on the Hill.
     
    And so, we expect that the tariff revenue is actually going to make it much easier for Republicans to pass a bill, and that was the President’s plan all along. 
     
    Thank you.
     
    Q    And I — I have a question for Stephen Miller about DOGE.  So, you — you spoke about DOGE.  You said roughly $50 billion is set to be cut in a year of waste, fraud, and abuse by unelected bureaucrats.  We’re hearing this ironic narrative from the President’s critics and the left-wing media that Elon Musk is an unelected bureaucrat, and he’s doing all this terrible stuff.  Isn’t one of DOGE’s objectives to get — get rid of the federal bureaucracy, the — the deep state?  And also, who was running the White House when Joe Biden was in office —
     
    MR. MILLER:  (Laughs.)
     
    Q    — because I don’t know a single person who believes it was Joe Biden? 
     
    MR. MILLER:  Yes.  You’re — you’re tempting me to say — (laughs) — some very harsh things about some of our media friends.  The — yes, it is true that many of the people in this room, for four years, failed to cover the fact that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent and was not running the country. 
     
    It is also true that many people in this room who have used this talking point that Elon is not elected fail to understand how government works.  So, I’m glad for the opportunity for a brief civics lesson. 
     
    A president is elected by the whole American people.  He’s the only official in the entire government that is elected by the entire nation.  Right?  Judges are appointed.  Members of Congress are elected at the district or state level.  Just one man. 
     
    And the Constitution, Article Two, has a clause, known as the vesting clause, and it says, “The executive power shall be vested in a president,” singular.  The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president.  That president then appoints staff to then impose that democratic will onto the government. 
     
    The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for. 
     
    So, Americans vote for radical FBI reform, and FBI agents say they don’t want to change.  Or Americans vote for radical reform in our energy policies, but EPA bureaucrats say they don’t want to change.  Or Americans vote to end DEI — racist DEI policies, and lawyers in the Department of Justice say they don’t want to change. 
     
    What President Trump is doing is he is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people. 
     
    Thank you. 
     
    Q    Thanks, Stephen.  Can I follow up?
     
    Q    Karoline.
     
    MS. LEAVITT:  Thank you very much, everybody.  I’m looking at the clock.  We’ve almost had an hour of time. 
     
    (Cross-talk.)

    LEAVITT:  I know a couple of these individuals have a meeting to get to at 2:00 p.m.  So, you’re welcome to follow up with my team for further questions.  We’re going to let these guys get back to running the United States government.
     
    And we will see you all later.  President Trump will be speaking at 3 o’clock at the Black History Month reception.
     
    So, thank you.  It’s good to see you.  We’ll see you in a bit.  Thanks.
     
    Q    Are you going to the Black History Month reception, Mr. Miller?
     
    Q    Stephen, on the fraud.  Should we expect indictments?
     
    Q    What is your reaction to Mitch McConnell’s retirement?
     
    Q    Are there indictments coming for all the fraud we’ve found?
     
         MR. MILLER:  I’d love to follow up with you.  Just set up a time with Karoline.
     
         Q    Okay.  Thank you. 
     
    END                   1:56 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Telstra found to have misled nearly 9,000 Belong customers over broadband speed claims

    Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

    The Federal Court has today found that Telstra made false or misleading representations relating to the upload speed of residential broadband internet services supplied to nearly 9,000 of its Belong customers, following court action by the ACCC.

    In October and November 2020, Telstra migrated 8,897 customers who were on a Belong NBN plan with a maximum download speed of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and a maximum upload speed of 40Mbps, to a service with a maximum upload speed of 20Mbps.

    Telstra did not notify customers of the reduction in the maximum upload speed in their service. “Telstra’s failure to inform customers that their broadband service had been altered denied them the opportunity to decide whether the changed service was suitable for their needs,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

    “There was no reduction to the price Telstra charged its customers even though the cost charged by NBN Co to Telstra was $7 a month less for the new, lower speed service.”

    Telstra admitted that it had represented to 2,785 of the Belong customers, who acquired the 40 Mbps plan between 1 May 2017 and 19 September 2018, that they were receiving a Belong NBN Broadband service with a maximum upload speed of 40Mbps, when they were not.  

    Telstra continued to make these representations by failing to update customers once the unilateral migration had occurred. Telstra acknowledged its failure in 2021 and provided a one-off $90 credit to these consumers.

    The Court also found that Telstra had made false or misleading representations to a further 6,112 Belong customers who had acquired the 40mbps plan between 20 September 2018 and October 2020.

    While Telstra never stated the maximum upload speed to these customers, the Court found that these consumers would have reasonably construed the service to which they were bound was the same in all material aspects, including upload speed, as it had always been.

    “It is simply unacceptable for a supplier of essential services to mislead consumers when reducing the quality of the services it is providing to its customers,” Ms Carver said.

    “We expect better from the country’s largest retail broadband internet service provider and believe these customers, who ultimately received a service they did not agree to, should be compensated.”

    The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, consumer redress, costs and other orders.

    The Court will determine the penalty and any consumer redress after a hearing on a date to be fixed.

    Background

    Telstra is Australia’s largest telecommunications supplier, supplying the largest number of retail broadband internet services and owning the largest mobile network over which it supplies both retail and wholesale services. It is a publicly listed company, incorporated in Australia.

    Belong was launched by Telstra in 2013 as a low-cost mobile and internet service provider, operating semi-independently in a number of areas, including products, marketing, service, billing and parts of IT.

    Upload speed refers to the speed at which an internet connection can allow data to be sent from personal devices to the internet, such as sending files, presentations or media content when working or studying from home or sharing photos and videos.

    In May 2020, NBN Co launched new wholesale consumer speed tiers, including a new 100/20Mbps wholesale speed tier, which costs retail service providers $7 less per month than the 100/40Mbps plan on a wholesale level.   

    The ACCC instituted these Federal Court proceedings against Telstra in December 2022.

    The ACCC has previously instituted proceedings against Telstra on several occasions, including in August 2021 for making alleged false or misleading representations in their promotions of some 50Mbps and 100Mbps NBN plans. Telstra was subsequently ordered to pay $15 million in penalties in that case.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: (WIP) Big batteries in 2025: the market evolution continues

    Source: Allens Insights

    Another big year for BESS 12 min read

    Utility-scale batteries reached new heights in 2024, achieving several industry firsts. Milestones include the first project-financed virtual offtake agreement and long-term energy service agreement (LTESA), coupled with inventive approaches to revenue stack structuring. As investor interest intensifies, the future of battery storage looks promising.

    This latest Insight on the Australian big battery market delves into the recent trends, the potential opportunities and hurdles for this rapidly evolving industry.

    Key takeaways

    • Project financing of battery energy storage system (BESS) projects is on the rise, with an increasingly sophisticated market, a widening pool of sponsors and diverse range of investment structures.
    • Virtual offtake agreements are dominating the offtake market, giving developers greater flexibility in their revenue stack and opportunities for equity upside through market arbitrage.
    • Interest in the Capacity Investment Scheme and LTESAs is increasing and contributing to projects reaching financial close.
    • Equity investors continue to be attracted to standalone and co-located BESS projects, as well as investment in the hardware and software of a battery.

    What we are seeing in the market

    A growing number of battery projects achieved financial close across the past year and project finance has continued to be the dominant approach. We have seen significant greenfield and operational battery projects financed on a standalone basis and as part of hybrid projects, as well as portfolio-based financings. 

    Key examples of this trend are the renewables portfolio financings for Global Power Generation, FRV and Neoen, all of which included battery projects as part of the technology mix. Akaysha Energy’s standalone financing of its Orana Battery Energy Storage System marked a financing for the largest four-hour BESS in Australia’s National Energy Market (NEM), and one of the largest in the world. 

    The continued support in the project finance market for battery storage projects has been driven by a range of factors, including:

    • a widening pool of sponsors—and, in some cases, extremely strong sponsors—who are investing in the technology;
    • a diverse range of investment structures and rationales, which have seen developers and sponsors raise debt financing for batteries on a standalone and portfolio basis, or as part of co-located or hybrid projects. In some cases, this has been motivated by a business pivot or expansion in response to an increasing need to couple projects with intermittent generation sources with a firming energy source or, more generally, net zero and decarbonisation objectives; and
    • increasing sophistication and experience of developers, contractors and other stakeholders in relation to procurement and contracting strategy, trading strategy, management of interface and gap risk in the context of split contracting, and innovation in revenue structures.

    These trends have been accompanied by—and, in some ways, conducive to—an expanding range of financiers (including mainstream commercial banks, government lenders and other non-bank lenders) participating in financings for battery projects; a greater understanding from lenders of technology and degradation risk; and a greater market acceptance of split contracting structures and non-traditional revenue structures as bankable.

    Throughout 2024 we observed a marked increase in the development and adoption of virtual offtake agreements as a preferred offtake structure. Notable examples are Neoen’s Western Downs BESS and Victorian Big Battery, and, as mentioned earlier, Akaysha’s Orana BESS. 

    A virtual offtake agreement decouples the financial offtake from the physical project. The project company may therefore choose not to follow the instructions of the offtaker and instead operate the BESS according to its own internal trading strategy, but it must still settle the financial swap on pre-agreed terms, regardless of battery capacity and how much the battery is charged or discharged. 

    From the project company’s perspective, unlike a traditional physical toll, it retains control of the physical battery. This increases the opportunities for equity upside through trading arbitrage. The structure also facilitates greater flexibility for a single project to procure offtake agreements with multiple offtakers. It may also be compatible with hybrid or co-located projects in need of multiple offtakers for different components of the project.

    Virtual offtakes are not, however, for everyone. Both the owner and the offtaker need sophisticated trading teams to allow them to make the most of the virtual arrangements and to reduce the risk of making losses. Similarly, developers who want to sell out of a project prior to financial close may want to consider whether a virtual offtake agreement could limit the potential buyer pool to those that have the technical capability to trade the asset.

    In considering this type of structure from a financing perspective, lenders will be focused on mitigating the potential downside exposure in circumstances where physical trading by the project company underperforms against the virtual nominations, eroding actual base case revenue against revenue assumptions against which debt is sized.  

    Providing lenders with appropriate oversight and protections (including, if required, agreed trading protocols), while providing sufficient room for equity to seek upside opportunities, will be the key to building broader market acceptance of the bankability of non-traditional revenue structures such as virtual offtake agreements.

    Last year saw the Federal Government launch the first five tenders in its Capacity Investment Scheme, which wrapped in a tender for the NSW Government’s LTESAs.

    Each tender round has been oversubscribed, indicating a strong appetite from project developers to secure a government underwriting contract such as a Capacity Investment Scheme Agreement (CISA) or an LTESA

    While these underwriting contracts have typically been viewed by project financiers as welcome enhancements, they have traditionally been seen as a ‘nice-to-have’ feature, with the primary focus of lenders being on whether the project has the benefit of a traditional tolling or offtake agreement. At most, we saw sponsors and borrowers proposing to recognise CISAs and LTESAs acting as a floor against any potential market risk (either due to the residual life of the BESS past the offtake tenor or for partially contracted assets). 

    More recently, we are seeing lenders develop a greater understanding of how such agreements can underpin forecast project cashflows in a way that enables higher weighting to be placed on them as a certain and bankable revenue line in the base case financial model. This approach is often supported by tailored protections that are agreed in the debt documents, such as:

    • undertakings around how the project activates and manages its rights to receive support payments;
    • information undertakings, to provide lenders with appropriate visibility over the operation of the underwriting agreement during the facility term; and
    • cash reserving requirements, to facilitate the project maximising the benefit of underwriting agreements, while providing for a buffer should there be a need to meet any payment obligations back to the counterparty (eg reconciliation payments or rebates).

    As more government underwriting agreements are awarded under the LTESA and CISA schemes, there will be an increasing number of projects in the market where such agreements are a feature of the revenue profile. We expect that market acceptance of this approach will continue to broaden over time.

    Split contracting has established itself as the market standard for BESS projects, with sponsors and financiers becoming significantly more comfortable with managing and banking the interface risks between battery supply and balance of plant (BOP) scope.

    Commissioning, handover, defects, security, liability caps and liquidated damages coverage continue to be key areas of focus in negotiations, gaps analysis and bankability assessments. However, the issues, and the related mitigation strategies and contingencies, are now well understood.

    As the BESS split contracting structure has matured, we have also begun to see sponsors with a portfolio of upcoming BESS and other renewables projects seek to partner informally with preferred battery suppliers and/or BOP contractors across that pipeline—the goal being to expedite procurement timeframes, secure production slots and standardise terms across their portfolio.

    With BESS projects increasingly being co-developed with related solar/wind projects (either greenfield or expansions), we also expect to see an increase in a common BOP contractor delivering both the battery and solar/wind BOP scope. At this stage, the BOP scope usually remains ringfenced between assets (eg there is a BESS BOP contract and a solar BOP contract). However, we expect to see sponsors push towards a single hybrid project BOP contract covering both assets, to seek to streamline contracting terms and construction programs on hybrid projects.

    In order to ensure that the structure is bankable, project financiers require a rigorous gaps analysis process underpinning the contract negotiations, along with confidence in the capability and experience of the contractors themselves. The need for a robust gaps analysis does mean more substantial engagement with financiers, and sponsors and developers have had to factor this into the overall transaction timetable. However, the continued rise in standard terms contracts from certain contractors in the market may facilitate efficiencies in the due diligence process, especially on portfolio-based financings.

    Investors continue to be attracted to BESS assets. Unsurprisingly, the reasons for their increasing investment appeal are similar to why we are seeing more and more BESS projects reach financial close.

    These factors enable BESS owners to diversify and maximise revenue output from their renewable energy portfolios. Coupled with favourable investment characteristics for BESS assets, such as lower capex costs and shorter development timelines (particularly when compared with other renewable asset types), we expect to see investment appetite for BESS assets continue to grow.

    In the Australian M&A market, this investor appetite has manifested primarily in the form of co-location ‘add-ons’—where vendors looking to sell a solar or wind project have added a BESS development opportunity to the project. If the BESS can be developed on the project’s existing land footprint, the ‘add-on’ process is relatively simple (other than for the connection process, which continues to cause headaches for developers), and the project up for sale can be rebranded as a co-located wind/solar and BESS project, unlocking for the buyer the various new revenue streams. For the vendor, those additional revenue streams mean a higher purchase price.

    What’s on the horizon

    Recognition of sub-investment grade offtakers?

    The offtaker’s credit quality will continue to be a focus for lenders when assessing BESS projects. However, as a greater range of offtakers enter the market, we can expect more frequent proposals for financiers to consider counterparties that may not have the credit ratings that would typically be required for a bankable project.

    We are seeing this area incrementally develop. This is particularly so in renewables portfolio financings, where certain sub-investment grade offtakers may be recognised and given greater weighting (and, in some cases, equivalent to an investment grade offtaker) as part of debt sizing cashflows, subject to appropriate percentage caps and other criteria being met.

    Opportunities for fully merchant BESS projects

    A further example of the evolving market for BESS financings may be found in the recent Amp Energy project financing of a fully merchant BESS project by commercial bank lenders and Export Development Canada. While we have certainly seen project financings for BESS projects with merchant exposure, those projects have typically included at least some contracted revenue component (whether through a tolling agreement, virtual power purchase agreement, LTESA or revenue risk-sharing agreement). 

    This makes the Amp transaction an interesting market development. Depending on the project and the sponsor, the debt model on the Amp transaction may not be feasible for all sponsors and developers, given that a fully merchant BESS compared with a contracted BESS would necessarily mean more conservative debt sizing, at least in the short term. However, for certain sponsors with strong equity backing, where a high percentage of equity is available to be contributed to individual projects, and where there are challenges or other commercial reasons for not procuring an offtake, a fully merchant-based project financing may still be attractive. 

    Whether this means we will see a growing number of merchant BESS project financings is unclear. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts energy storage capacity in the NEM will increase from approximately 2GW at the end of 2024 to nearly 7GW by the end of 2025.1 As more BESS projects come online over time, there may be fewer arbitrage and other similar revenue opportunities. 

    At least in the short term, we expect this may lead to certain sponsors and developers more closely exploring opportunities to raise debt against BESS projects that are fully merchant or that have substantial merchant exposure.

    Investment in BESS platforms and core components

    A growing trend is the investment in BESS-specific investment platforms. While only a limited number have come to market in Australia so far (including the recent ZEBRE BESS platform announced by ZEN Energy and HDRE), we have worked with a number of investors who are looking at opportunities in this space. Investors are drawn to the benefits of BESS projects described above and the potential to accelerate the growth of those benefits when they are aggregated on a portfolio basis.

    We have also seen increased investment interest in core BESS components, including:

    • the hardware—as rival technologies, focused on cost efficiency and safety, are emerging to challenge lithium-based batteries; and
    • the software—focusing in particular on storage and discharge optimisation.

    While the current focus from investors in these core BESS components appears to be on systems designed for the residential and commercial and industrial markets, the ambition for a number of these technologies is to scale up to the utility-scale BESS market.

    Commencement of the GO Scheme

    The Guarantee of Origin Scheme (the GO Scheme) is set to commence in 2025, bringing with it new tradeable certificates in the form of Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) certificates. Unlike large-scale generation certificates, REGOs will be able to be created by energy storage systems (such as batteries) where there is a ‘direct supply relationship’ with an eligible renewable energy facility.

    In addition, REGOs will be time-stamped, meaning they will record the hour of the day in which they were generated. This will allow temporal matching of electricity generation and consumption, and will likely drive a price differentiation between eg REGO certificates generated at 1pm when there is excess solar generation and 1am when renewable energy supply is scarce.

    The introduction of REGO certificates presents an interesting opportunity, and a potential new revenue source, for BESS projects.

    More information on the GO Scheme can be found in our previous Insight.

    Revenue implications from AEMO’s market interventions

    Under the National Electricity Rules, AEMO has powers to issue mandatory ‘directions’ to registered participants in the NEM in relation to the operation of their facilities. This is not uncommon, and is primarily used by the market operator to manage periods of volatility in the market and maintain the reliability standard. Participants are subsequently reimbursed for their compliance via a well-established compensation framework administered by AEMO.

    AEMO has indicated that it intends to use its directions power on battery operators to address the increasingly commonplace minimum system load issues— eg by directing an operator to fully discharge batteries early in the morning and to hold the batteries at minimum charge during the morning, with the direction lifted in the early afternoon.

    However, there are growing concerns that this directions compensation model is not fit for purpose for standalone batteries and other energy storage technologies. The financial model for a standalone BESS is particularly reliant on taking advantage of exactly these periods of financial volatility in the market, and AEMO’s directions compensation framework may not be appropriate in providing adequate financial redress for the opportunity cost that is lost by virtue of being required to comply with an AEMO direction.

    Following the AEMC’s ‘Review into electricity compensation frameworks’, the final report for which was published in December 2024 and can be found here, we expect there to be continued discussions on this issue, to ensure that BESS operators are fairly compensated for AEMO’s market interventions.

    Vanadium flow as an emerging alternative to lithium-ion?

    As the BESS market expands, we expect to see competing technologies emerge as alternatives to lithium-ion batteries. The WA Government recently announced $150 million of funding to develop a 50MW / 500MWh vanadium flow battery (VFB) in Kalgoorlie, which would be Australia’s largest VFB. While VFBs have been mooted for a number of years as a potential utility-scale alternative to lithium-ion batteries, the first (and largest) ‘commercial’ VFB in Australia (a 2MW / 8MWh battery) was only commissioned in mid-2023, as part of the Spencer Energy Project.

    The key roadblocks to the widespread adoption of utility-scale VFBs seem to be higher upfront costs compared with lithium-ion batteries (vanadium is heavily used in steel refining, which creates price and supply chain volatility), and lower roundtrip efficiency of around 70–85% (compared with 90–95% for lithium-ion batteries).

    Despite this, VFBs seemingly provide a number of commercial benefits compared with lithium-ion batteries. In particular, VFBs offer longer storage duration (between 8–12 hours), and the theoretical ability to discharge completely and for an unlimited number of times without significant degradation (providing a much longer and consistent asset life). Further, VFBs are said to be safer (and fire resistant), and storage capacity can be easily increased by adding more electrolyte. At scale and over time, these benefits could help drive a significantly lower LCOE. The WA Government’s funding may be the catalyst to cut upfront costs and kickstart VFBs as a leading alternative to lithium-ion batteries.

    The continuing evolution

    As we look ahead, it is clear that 2025 promises to be another exciting year for the BESS sector. We expect to see more diverse, and growing, opportunities for battery projects, including across construction contracting, revenue structures, project and portfolio-based financing, and M&A. 

    If you would like to hear more about what we’re seeing in the market, please contact any of the team members below.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Shaheen Introduces Amendments to Budget Resolution that Would Protect Families and Businesses from Rising Prices, Keep Americans Safe and Lower Health Care Costs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen

    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a top member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will offer dozens of amendments to the budget resolution tonight that would help make health care more affordable, lower the costs of energy bills, protect American consumers and businesses from rising prices imposed by President Trump’s tariffs and keep Americans safe by enhancing military preparedness, strengthening our air traffic controller workforce and investing in the northern border. 

    “While some of my Republican colleagues seem set on using tonight’s process to carve out a path to give tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country on the backs of working Americans, I’m urging bipartisan cooperation on commonsense opportunities that would allow working families to keep more of their hard-earned money and enhance public safety,” said Shaheen. “We have a real opportunity to deliver lasting results for our constituents who are grappling with high costs—unfortunately, President Trump and Congressional Republicans are instead focusing on delivering a tax cut for the wealthiest while slashing programs millions rely on.” 

    Below is an overview of the dozens of amendments Senator Shaheen will offer for consideration tonight. 

    To help lower everyday costs, Shaheen will offer amendments that would: 

    • Support housing affordability by preventing construction cost increases due to tariffs and delays and expanding investment in housing development. 
    • Help households afford groceries, including preventing broad tariffs which would raise the price of food or cuts to food aid for families. 
    • Prevent funding cuts to child care or early childhood education programs helping New Hampshire families. 
    • Support affordable housing in disaster recovery by rebuilding with resilient and cost-effective methods, especially those that lower home insurance rates. 
    • Lower sugar prices for American businesses and consumers harmed by the U.S. sugar program. 

    To help make health care more affordable and accessible, Shaheen will offer amendments that would: 

    • Prioritize Affordable Care Act tax credits that give 22 million Americans access to affordable, quality health insurance. 
    • Ensure that Medicaid expansion programs aren’t eliminated by drastic cuts to federal funding, including New Hampshire’s Granite Advantage covering more than 60,000 Granite Staters. 
    • Ensure that patients suffering from diabetes do not face unnecessary barriers to care, including access to $35 insulin. 
    • Ensure hospitals and doctors working in rural areas can keep their doors open and continue providing lifesaving care for their patients. 
    • Ensure that our community health centers can continue to provide vital care to their patients. 

    To help enhance public safety and keep families secure, Shaheen will offer amendments that would: 

    • Make investments in the Air Traffic Controller workforce and overturn the reckless firing of hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration personnel critical to aviation safety. 
    • Improve cell service and communications for emergency services along the northern border. 
    • Ensure that DHS has the technology needed to monitor and defend the U.S.-Canada border against the flow of drugs and illegal migration. 
    • Raise pay for U.S. Bureau of Prisons correctional officers in New Hampshire and across the country. 
    • Preserve funding for programs that support survivors of sexual and domestic violence. 
    • Ensure local law enforcement agencies and communities are not left with the bill for unfunded federal mandates. 
    • Prioritize the deportation of undocumented individuals who pose threats to our national security or public safety. 
    • Ensure that increased funding for the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security is focused on stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. 

    To help lower American households’ energy costs, Shaheen will offer amendments that would: 

    • Protect Americans from higher energy costs for gas, heating oil and propane due to broad tariffs. 
    • Protect bipartisan investments that lower energy costs, promote electric grid reliability and improve drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, including addressing PFAS contamination. 
    • Protect families, farmers and businesses from higher energy costs by ensuring energy saving and renewable energy projects funded by Congress continue. 
    • Prevent Congress from blocking state or local governments from updating their building codes to protect life and property, reduce losses from disasters or lower energy costs for families. 
    • Support energy efficient building construction and retrofits to lower energy costs and enhance electric grid reliability. 
    • Support resources that help make home heating more affordable, including energy assistance from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and weatherization. 

    To help bolster America’s national security and support American service members and their families, Shaheen will offer amendments that would: 

    • Support military service members, veterans and families, including by protecting family members who were recently fired from federal employment solely because they were new to a job. 
    • Replenish the defense industrial base ramping up to support Ukraine. 
    • Replenish the defense industrial base ramping up to support the defense of Taiwan. 
    • Ensure that the United States continues its commitments to NATO, which supports the collective defense of the United States. 
    • Resume U.S. foreign assistance that counters Chinese influence. 
    • Ensure that federal employees essential to national security are not impacted by the OMB buyout and federal hiring freeze memos. 
    • Require oversight over wasteful spending. 
    • Protect DoD’s policy that ensures service women receive the same coverage for contraception as civilian women. 
    • Ensure that service women, who are stationed in areas without access to reproductive care, through no fault of their own, can be reimbursed for the cost of travel. 
    • Ensure that U.S. farmers do not suffer economic harm due to the freeze on U.S. assistance. 
    • Protect U.S. small businesses and contractors from a pause on U.S. foreign assistance. 

    Additional amendments would: 

    • Prevent a reduction in postal service for rural America, including by preventing the closure of processing centers. 
    • Ensure that Americans are protected against fraud, price gouging and higher rental and housing prices caused by illegal price information sharing. 
    • Support funding to assist Afghan SIVs and refugee resettlement. 
    • Cut more than $40 billion in wasteful agriculture spending going to large corporate farm operations while preserving benefits to small family farms. 
    • Ensure strong funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission. 
    • Prevent adding $5 trillion of tax cuts to the national debt and raising interest rates when the Federal Government is already paying $1 trillion per year in interest. 
    • Support screening for Avian Flu both domestically and overseas. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Grassley Statement on the Passing of Major General Evan L. “Curly” Hultman

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released the following statement regarding Major General Evan L. “Curly” Hultman, who passed away Sunday at age 99.

    “The Cedar Valley has lost a hometown hero, Iowa has lost a respected public servant and America has lost a lifelong patriot. Barbara and I have lost a dear friend who was a tireless grassroots leader for the Republican Party. His conservative principles and work ethic were unshakeable. Curly hit the campaign trail for decades, from the Iowa caucuses to my own campaigns for elected office. His appetite for politics was whet from an early age, when he attended his first political event for the re-election of President Hoover as a young boy. Curly was larger than life and made life better for those around him.

    “A member of the Greatest Generation, Curly put his life on the line for freedom, enlisting in the Army during World War II and serving in the South Pacific. After the war, Curly devoted his life to public service and his fellow veterans. He served as Iowa attorney general and was the Republican gubernatorial nominee in 1964. Curly was nominated by three U.S. presidents for U.S. Attorney and promoted to Major General in the U.S. Army Reserve. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal by President Reagan in 1984 and received the Distinguished Public Service Medal by the Secretary of Defense in 1994. He led the Reserve Officers Association and the International Confederation of Reserve Officers. These accolades underscore Curly’s legacy of leadership, service and sacrifice. However, Curly’s greatest duty and devotion was reserved for his family and junior high school sweetheart Betty, his wife of 73 years. Godspeed, Curly. May you rest in eternal peace alongside your beloved Betty.”

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News