Category: housing

MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Second Chance Act – Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program National Conference

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Thank you, Karol [Mason], for that kind introduction and for your outstanding leadership as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. I also want to thank Valerie Jarrett for her tireless work on so many important issues relating to criminal justice reform. It’s a pleasure to be here today and it’s a privilege to join such a distinguished group of inspiring leaders, passionate advocates and eminent experts for this important convening about how we can continue working together to reduce recidivism, improve reentry outcomes and help every American exiting prison and jail lead a meaningful and productive life.

This conversation is taking place at a particularly significant time. Over the last few years, we have gained a deeper understanding of how a variety of factors can undermine basic equality and distort the arc of justice. As a result, Americans from a range of backgrounds and beliefs have come to agree that our criminal justice system can and must be made more efficient, more effective and more fair. And thanks in no small part to the efforts of people like you, we have arrived at a critical moment of consensus around the urgency of ensuring that each component of our justice system – from bail to fines and fees; from policing to indigent defense; and from sentencing guidelines to incarceration – is more closely aligned with our fundamental belief in opportunity and justice for all.

A vital part of that task is examining what happens to our fellow Americans when they exit the justice system. With our criminal justice system impacting one in four Americans in some way, the sheer human capital represented by that number is too important to our future to be written off and thrown away. Their families cannot afford to lose their influence. Their communities cannot afford to lose their contributions. And we cannot afford to lose their potential. But what happens when our fellow Americans finish paying their debt to society and return home, pockets empty? Do they have opportunities to further their education? Can they find jobs that allow them to grow and succeed? Can they access mentoring programs and counseling services? Do they have what they need to stay on the right path? Do they have, in fact, a second chance? These are crucial questions with profound implications, not only for the individuals returning to society, but for every American in every community. If we let the cycle of incarceration and recidivism continue, too many Americans will be denied the chance to fulfill their potential and contribute their skills and talents to their communities. If we allow those who have done their time to be further punished upon release by collateral consequences brought on by prejudice and neglect, too many of our neighborhoods will continue to struggle under the burden of division and mistrust. And if we don’t prepare incarcerated individuals to re-enter society, public safety is harmed; taxpayer dollars are wasted; and we as a country will fall short of our promise.

That’s why the work you do is so important. Whether you conduct job training for individuals looking for their next step, or counsel those grappling with addiction or mental illness, you make it clear to reentering Americans that they are not alone. You walk alongside them as they navigate the difficult path forward. And you give them the tools and help them hone the skills they need to make the most of their second chance. Your work is having a broader impact, too – because of your successes, a growing number of states and municipalities throughout the U.S. are implementing evidence-based programs to help reduce recidivism; improve the prospects of the formerly incarcerated; and create stronger, safer, and more prosperous communities for all.

The Department of Justice is committed to doing our part to advance that mission. Since Congress passed the Second Chance Act in 2007, our Office of Justice Programs has made nearly 750 Second Chance Act grants totaling more than $400 million – including $53 million in FY 2015 to 45 jurisdictions. With the help of these funds, our grantees have offered critical assistance to populations at moderate and high risk of recidivism. They have introduced comprehensive reentry programs for justice-involved youth; helped people with diagnosed mental illnesses find stable housing and avoid rearrest; offered college credit to incarcerated individuals; and established a variety of metrics for tracking progress so that we know what works. These are just a few examples of the initiatives that you and your partners have launched in 49 states with SCA funding and we at the Justice Department could not be more proud to support your work.

In addition to our partnerships with you, we are working with a number of cabinet-level agencies through the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. This unique body, which I am proud to chair, is designed to reduce federal barriers to reentry and promote innovative approaches to reintegration. For instance, under the council’s auspices, we’ve launched a pilot program with the Department of Education that makes some inmates eligible for federal Pell grants, opening doors through postsecondary education or training. We’ve joined the Department of Housing and Urban Development to explore ways to address homelessness among the justice-involved publication. And in the coming weeks, the Departments of Justice and Labor will establish a National Clean Slate Clearinghouse to provide local jurisdictions technical assistance with record-cleaning and expungement – an appropriate follow-up to President Obama’s recent announcement that federal employers would “ban the box” and no longer ask applicants about their criminal histories at the initial hiring stage.

The scope and pace of these efforts is a reminder of the real and remarkable progress that the United States has made in helping incarcerated citizens succeed after prison. But though we have made an encouraging start, as you know, our work is far from finished. At this critical juncture – this moment of rare bipartisan agreement – it is more important than ever that we harness this momentum and continue to push forward, so that every American returning from prison can find dignified work and adequate shelter; so that they can receive fair treatment and full opportunity; so that they return to a society that values them as fellow citizens; so that they can, in fact, truly return home.

I have no illusions that the road ahead will be easy. But with the help of extraordinary partners like all of you here today, I am not only hopeful, but confident, about where our nation is headed. After all, you were calling for change long before criminal justice reform led the news broadcasts and earned headlines. Now that change is within sight, I know that your conviction has only deepened, your resolve has only strengthened, and that our fight for progress will continue to bear fruit. Thank you once again for all that you’ve done. Thank you for your faith in our mission and our work. I look forward to all that we will achieve together in the days and months to come.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin Delivers Remarks at Practising Law Institute’s Coping with U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions 2015 Conference
Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you for that introduction, and for the opportunity to be a part of this important discussion.

As you all know, foreign governments and other non-state adversaries of the United States are engaged in an aggressive campaign to evade U.S. sanctions regimes and acquire sensitive U.S. technology. In so doing, they threaten our economy, our prosperity and, most importantly, our national security. Disrupting these national security threats is among the highest priorities of the Department of Justice, and the National Security Division.

But the responsibility of protecting our nation from these threats is a shared one. Your clients – the companies you represent – and thus, you, have a critical role to play.

Because our companies have our nation’s crown jewels in their possession. They house information targeted by thieves ranging from foreign powers bent on economic and military superiority, to individual criminals who know the market demand for this information, to terrorists who wish to create weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, companies have a responsibility to comply with the export control and sanctions regime. We must also recognize that our companies are not immune from becoming unwitting victims of thieves and spies. We live in an age where the threats we face are not limited to unlawful shipments and deliveries of goods. Threats are also posed by insiders and through cyberspace. Therefore, to protect what we value, our national assets, companies must learn how to comply with the law and how to protect themselves.

That is why it is good to see such a strong turnout. Lawyers are on the front line helping clients adapt to an ever evolving export control regime. Lawyers shape strategy – hardening collective defenses and counseling companies on best practices.

For example, sitting here today, you know to help your clients comply with export controls and sanctions. Regimes designed to keep export controlled data and trade secrets out of the hands of rogue nations or terrorists.

But have you had the chance to counsel those same clients when a cyber-hacker exfiltrated that information? If you have not, unfortunately, it may only be a matter of time. Cases involving the theft of export-controlled information via hacking are no longer uncommon.

Recently, we’ve brought cases where hackers targeted cleared U.S. defense contractors and stole massive amounts of sensitive data related to military technology, including export-controlled software. These cases are not the first of their kind, and they will almost certainly not be the last.

You have the power to help your clients protect themselves. In a modern, interconnected world, there is quickly emerging a blending of practice areas. Trade controls blends with data privacy, and export controls and sanctions trigger questions not only of compliance but of cybersecurity.

It is a fascinating time to be a practicing lawyer in this area, but one that brings with it grave responsibility.

Today, we’ll talk about a broad range of issues that go into being a modern export control practitioner.

National Security Division

But first, I can explain a bit about the National Security Division of the Department of Justice.

The National Security Division was created in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, in part in response to a specific recommendation from the WMD Commission.

The Commission identified intelligence failures that contributed to the attacks. It highlighted the danger of the so-called wall between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. We needed to be able to connect the dots. We needed to change.

So in 2006, Congress created the National Security Division, creating the first new litigating division in the Department in almost half a century. The National Security Division brings all of the department’s resources to bear. We bring down the wall, uniting prosecutors and law enforcement officials with intelligence attorneys and the Intelligence Community.

We are responsible for executing the highest priority of the Department of Justice – to protect this nation from the full range of national security threats we face. We are proud to have this essential mission.

At the top of our priority list is protecting our nation from terrorist threats. In recent days, you’ve heard everyone from the president to the attorney general and the director of the FBI speaking at length about the steps we are taking to combat that threat each and every day.

Just yesterday, we arrested Jalil Ibn Ameer Aziz, 19, a U.S. citizen and resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on charges of conspiring to provide, and attempting to provide, material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Aziz is alleged to have served as an intermediary between ISIL supporters. Passing location information, including maps and a phone number, to assist persons seeking to travel and travel to and wage jihad with ISIL.

Although it may not seem so at first, fighting terrorism and preventing the illegal export of U.S. technology are interrelated goals. Take the case of Feras Diri. Diri is indicted in the very same district as Aziz. We allege he was involved in a scheme to illegally export U.S. goods to Syria in violation of U.S. sanctions. Some of these good were dual-use items. It doesn’t take much to imagine the consequences of those items falling into the wrong hands once it reaches Syria.

One of the most significant national security threats we face, is the protection of our nation’s assets – including export controlled information, as well as other sensitive information that may be targeted by nation states and terrorists. In so doing, we take an intelligence-driven, threat-based approach.

We have an entire section devoted to this work – the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, or simply CES. We changed the name as part of a restructure to reflect the significance of export control and sanctions enforcement. This year, CES also finalized a new Strategic Plan, setting forth an aggressive, comprehensive approach. We know from experience that those seeking to do us harm will look for any available vulnerability to exploit. They use all tools against us; it is our responsibility to do the same. Our strategy is driven by the intelligence picture we see, which helps us prioritize and focus on the areas of most significant threat.

Our Priorities and Our Regime

Two of our highest priority areas involve China and WMDs. Both are subject to export controls and regulations.

Our economy profits from exports, and we support the flow of goods across borders. But we must balance economic gain with the real threat to national security posed by certain technologies falling into the wrong hands.

That is why our export control regime is so important. It is the best way to keep sensitive military and dual-use technologies, or even information that could be used in weapons of mass destruction, from ending up in the hands of terrorists and other adversaries. They protect our innovation from being turned against us.

With an ever-growing and evolving set of threats targeting our sensitive technologies and information, we must be vigilant. We must look at how transactions could make us more vulnerable, and do everything in our power to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

Take China – despite a long-standing U.S. arms embargo, China continues to surge efforts to acquire advanced U.S. military technology. China seeks U.S. persons with expertise to illegally provide services and know-how related to sensitive, export-controlled U.S. technology for military gain. As an example, they targeted U.S. experts on jet engines to assist in developing Chinese-made engines. If successful, our military edge over China is reduced; our country is put at greater risk. Knowing what China seeks and why is essential to any sound export compliance and training program.

Iranian Sanctions

Likewise, a high priority remains Iran.

Earlier this year, the United States, Iran, the E.U. and five other nations reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA does not go into effect until Implementation Day – which does not occur until after Iran has completed all necessary nuclear steps, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Even after Implementation Day, sanctions relief will not affect most laws and regulations enforced by the Department of Justice.

With few exceptions, U.S. or foreign persons involved in the export or re-export of U.S. goods or services to Iran remain subject to prosecution under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, as do U.S. persons involved in Iranian transactions.

The only sanctions relief relates to:
- the export, re-export, sale, lease or transfer to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft, parts and services for civil end-uses;
- the import of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs; and
- certain transactions involving Iran by foreign entities owned or controlled by a U.S. person.
Looking beyond the sanctions to other U.S. export regulations, the JCPOA will have no effect on the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Likewise, our commitment to prosecuting cases where defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List (USML), defense services and items subject to the EAR are exported to Iran remains as strong as ever.

So as a practical matter, what does this mean? Bottom line, companies and individuals, whether U.S. or foreign, need to remain vigilant when it comes to any possible commercial or financial interactions with Iran. We will continue to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute U.S. export control and sanctions cases involving Iran under our domestic authorities. Because anything else is simply unacceptable.

The export control and sanctions regime in place exists to protect this nation from the proliferation threat. From sensitive information and technology that could pose a grave danger in the wrong hands making its way to terrorists. From our innovation being used to develop weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missiles.

Iran remains a designated state sponsor of terrorism, and we will not take our eye off of countering Iran’s efforts to support international terrorism and other destabilizing activities in the region.

Corporate Misconduct

U.S. companies – particularly in large international corporate structures, must understand this reality.

The risks – not only compliance-based risks, but security risks – must be front of mind, and we hope that as the lawyers who counsel, advise and represent these companies, you will talk frankly about them.

At the Department of Justice, we continue to prioritize corporate misconduct related to export control and sanctions violations. The deputy attorney general issued guidance and directed changes to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual to reflect the department’s sharpened focus in this area including on individual corporate defendants.

To provide you clarity as you advise clients, we will provide guidance to make clear our current practices on voluntary self-disclosure of export and sanctions criminal violations. We want to be transparent about our process and the factors we consider when assessing voluntary self-disclosures. That way, the benefits for your clients are clear, and you can provide clear counsel.

Because when a company voluntarily self-discloses export control and sanctions misconduct, fully cooperates and appropriately remediates, we will grant the company a significantly reduced penalty. That can include a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), a reduced period of supervised compliance, a reduced fine and forfeiture and no requirement for a monitor.

If one or more aggravating factors are present to a substantial degree – like numerous willful shipments of defense articles to a foreign terrorist organization – a more stringent resolution might be necessary. In all cases, however, the company that voluntary discloses will find itself in a better position one that does not.

We are also discussing these issues with our regulatory partners to help you understand how the Department of Justice fits in to the broader regime. The Department of Justice guidance we ultimately issue on VSDs will not supplant or supersede obligations to regulators. Our ultimate goal is to be more transparent, so that companies will have more certainty about the benefits of self-disclosure are when dealing with prosecutors. In the end, we think this is good for our national security mission and good for business.

Voluntary self-disclosure is responsible. But even if you choose not to pursue the route of voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation, your corporate clients need to remain vigilant or they may suffer serious consequences.

Time and again, we have shown that willfully facilitating illegal transactions will not go unpunished.

Earlier this year, Schlumberger Oilfield Holdings Ltd. (SOHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger Ltd., one of the largest oil and gas services companies in the world, pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a penalty of over $232 million for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by willfully facilitating illegal transactions and engaging in trade with Iran and Sudan.

What it ultimately came down to, was that one subsidiary failed to adequately train its employees to ensure that all U.S. persons, including non-U.S. citizens who resided in the United States, complied with Schlumberger Ltd.’s sanctions policies and compliance procedures.

We will not hesitate to prosecute individuals and entities that facilitate illegal transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions.

Vigilance is essential. Policies and procedures are simply not enough. They must be fully executed and reinforced. Simply “checking the box” by implementing an export control and sanctions compliance program without the proper support or follow through will not insulate a company from prosecution.

Another point to keep in mind is the need to know your markets and your people. When you’re part of a large corporate family with many segments located overseas, some subject to very different export control laws in foreign countries, you have be careful to ensure that conduct illegal in the U.S. does not become practice here. If you have doubts, check with your regulator. Something a foreign national employee does overseas may have been entirely legal there, but once transferred here, is a crime.

When working with your clients on these and other difficult issues, implore them to be vigilant. These are complicated areas, and it takes sound advice and a high level of scrutiny to ensure compliance.

Insider Threats

Unfortunately, compliance is only one piece of the puzzle. Because, in addition to the compliance risks that are common in global operations, your corporate clients – and, in fact, even potentially their outside counsel –also are vulnerable to the threats from insiders and hackers.

Insider threats – threats from trusted employees and contractors – is now a significant problem. And they are threat to national security when they steal sensitive export-controlled technology.

For instance, Mozaffar Khazaee stole materials from each of three defense contractors who employed him, including materials relating to the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. He attempted to illegally export a shipping container’s worth of those proprietary, export-controlled materials to Iran in order to gain employment there. After pleading guilty, he received 97 months in prison.

Although that sentence sends a strong message to any insider who would consider violating the trust of his or her employer, deterrence alone is not enough.

So what can you do to address this problem? Report incidents of suspected insider theft as soon as they are detected. Create detailed internal training and compliance programs designed to neutralize threats before they even occur, and provide evidence of willful or knowing conduct in the event an insider is not deterred.

Cyber-Enabled Export Violations

That helps with threats from within our perimeters. But unfortunately, we also face them from outside our borders. That is why another of our export control enforcement priorities is to combat cyber exfiltration of sensitive U.S. technologies, including ITAR-controlled technical data.

In the digital age, foreign nations and their agents can now steal information, including export-controlled technical data and technology, without setting foot on American soil. Left unchecked, cyber espionage can erode our strategic advantages across commercial and military spectrums.

When possible, we will use investigations, arrests and prosecutions, to disrupt efforts to steal from you and your clients. We will also look to use all other legally available tools to deter, like sanctions, designations, diplomacy and other tactics.

But your partnership is critical. You can harden your defenses, create resilient systems, evaluate your cyber hygiene and cooperate with law enforcement when your defenses simply aren’t enough.

That is why we at the National Security Division and others throughout the U.S. government, including the FBI, have made cooperation with the private sector a key component of our export control strategy.

Outreach

We work with U.S. companies, across all industry sectors, to ensure that our national security interests are protected. We have spent time and energy in face-to-face sit downs so that we may better understand the concerns and challenges faced by U.S. companies, share guidance and information, and be there to help with protection, detection, attribution and response. We can warn our companies that manufacture or sell targeted U.S. parts and technology when certain bad actors are seeking the particular parts and technology they make.

Corporate outreach helps sensitize industry to the threat and thereby maximizes the prevention of export control and sanctions violations. We believe that through such efforts we can help stem the flow of those sensitive goods out of the U.S. to malicious end-users that would use them to threaten our national security interests and the safety of our warfighters.

It’s likely that many of you here today have clients that we’ve already met with recently to discuss these types of issues. If you do not, we would certainly welcome the opportunity to do so in the future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we recognize that our export control laws and sanctions regimes are complex and have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. But they are there to protect against the many threats we face.

And you play a critical role in that effort. You and your clients can successfully negotiate the current export control and sanctions regimes and help keep America safe.

Scrutinize closely each and every transaction undertaken with a foreign counterparty, whether a good or a financial transaction.

Make sure that you understand the relevant compliance and sanctions regimes and how they apply.

Make a voluntary self-disclosure to the National Security Division when you discover a willful violation of U.S. export control laws.

Develop robust training and compliance programs.

Focus not only on internal compliance, but on the threats posed by insiders and through cyberspace.

Harden your cyber defenses.

Develop a relationship with law enforcement, so that we may share valuable information with you to help you protect yourself, and be there to help you respond when your defense may simply not be enough.

Profits may be the lifeblood of our corporations, but cutting corners here in the interest of the bottom line, is potentially catastrophic. You and your clients risk enforcement actions, financial penalties and prison time. But perhaps more significantly, doing so can provide a dangerous capability to an adversary who wishes to bring about damage, destruction or death to many. So understanding and addressing how to comply with these regimes and neutralize these threats is not only the responsible thing to do, but the only thing to do.

The National Security Division will continue to approach export controls and sanctions with a broad and varied toolkit. We will continue to vigorously pursue and prosecute those who violate our nation’s export control laws, but that is not how we define success. Success is working with you to increase education and compliance and to prevent sensitive controlled technologies from falling into the wrong hands. We will combat threats posed by insiders and through cyberspace. And we will coordinate with our colleagues throughout the federal government to use an all tools approach – prosecution, listing, sanctions and other means of disruption – to combat national security threats.

With the careful calibration of these tools and with an eye toward mitigating vulnerabilities and defending against threats, we can protect the national security while simultaneously fostering economic growth and job creation.

Thank you for inviting me here this morning, and for your interest in these issues.

MIL Security OSI –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks at the 12th Annual State of the Net Conference

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Good morning. The Attorney General apologizes for not being able to be here today. She was at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland – addressing cybercrime issues – and, unfortunately, unable to get back to D.C. in time for this because of the snowstorm.

Thank you, Tim [Lordan], for that warm welcome, and for your leadership of the Internet Education Foundation (IEF). I also want to thank the IEF for the invaluable services you have provided since your organization was founded nearly two decades ago – and that you continue to provide today. Through this conference series, you bring together industry leaders, dedicated experts and devoted public servants to explore how we can harness new technologies to build more empowered communities and a stronger nation.

As the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, my foremost task in the cyber area is the vigorous, fair and effective enforcement of our cyber laws. The Justice Department does that by finding ways to protect our networks against evolving threats, by thwarting bad actors online, and by ensuring that both our security and our liberties remain as strong in the digital age as they have been throughout our history.

Essentially, we are focused on a question that President Obama posed in his State of the Union address a few weeks ago: How do we make technology work for us, and not against us?

In our age of rapid change and constant disruption, that question is relevant to almost every aspect of our lives, including law enforcement and national security.

There is no doubt that technology has both expanded and complicated our capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute crimes. Today, by using new technologies, we can analyze some types of evidence with unprecedented speed and accuracy, and coordinate with partners around the world in real time.

But as law enforcers have become better equipped, so have the law breakers we’re working to disrupt. Digital technology has transformed how police and prosecutors do our jobs, but it has also transformed how wrongdoers commit their crimes. Our bank accounts and personal information now exist online, tempting thieves and fraudsters.

The greater anonymity of cyberspace gives cover to drug dealers and arms traffickers. Dark websites are used to circulate illicit content, like images of child sexual exploitation and stolen credit cards.

Communication is frequently by instant message and email, so there are no actual paper trails, but rather virtual ones in data stored on digital devices, hard drives and in the cloud. And it isn’t just criminals who exploit the Internet for nefarious purposes.

The web also hosts groups and individuals who seek to harm our core security interests – from state-sponsored hackers conducting economic espionage; to rogue militants and official cyber warfare units targeting our infrastructure; to terrorist groups plotting attacks, radicalizing recruits and spreading hateful ideologies.

These emerging threats require nimble, innovative and adaptive responses, and at the Department of Justice, we are committed to doing our part to ensure that law enforcement stays a step ahead of bad actors.

The FBI continues to investigate cyber intrusions and national security threats while monitoring individuals, organized groups and state actors who might attempt to steal sensitive data or inflict harm. We recently created a Cybersecurity Unit within our Criminal Division, staffed with experienced prosecutors fluent in the law, policy and practice of cybercrime prevention.

And the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established an Internet Investigations Center (known as IIC) where federal agents, legal counsel and investigators track and counter illegal online firearms trafficking. The IIC – which was highlighted in the president’s recent recommendations to curb gun violence – has already identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet, and their work has led to prosecutions against individuals and groups using the “dark net” to traffic guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.

Of course, the Department of Justice’s work to combat cybercrime is enhanced through our collaboration with law enforcement partners in other agencies, such as the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Postal Inspection Service. And we are working to enhance cybersecurity and information sharing through our work with the Department of Homeland Security.

These are important steps to protect our online information and to combat crime here at home – but with an entity as vast and complex as the Internet, we must also reach beyond our own borders to partner with other countries. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.

In the last fiscal year, the FBI’s Cyber Division embedded three permanent Cyber Assistant Legal Attachés in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia to help facilitate information-sharing, improve cooperation on investigations and build even stronger relationships with our allies.

We recently placed a Criminal Division prosecutor with Eurojust in The Hague and one in Southeast Asia. These positions will help to facilitate information-sharing, improve cooperation on investigations and build even stronger relationships with our law enforcement partners in other countries.

We’ve also created a cyber unit in our Office of International Affairs (OIA) dedicated to responding to and executing requests for electronic evidence from foreign authorities – requests that have increased by 1,000 percent over the last decade.

To help manage that significant growth, we have been actively hiring additional attorneys and professional staff for OIA’s Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Modernization Project, and we hope to continue expanding our ability to help our overseas counterparts. And we are providing critical, real-time assistance to foreign counterparts through the 24/7 Points of Contact Network established by the Group of Seven Nations and by the Budapest Cybercrime Convention – a convention that, I am pleased to note, continues to be joined by countries around the world committed to fighting cybercrime.

Partnerships like these don’t just cultivate closer connections with our friends and allies – they also get results. In 2012, we participated in a multinational sweep of child-pornography websites, ultimately dismantling more than 200 websites that sexually exploited children.

In November 2014, we joined more than 15 countries under the auspices of the European Cybercrime Centre – or EC3 – to launch Operation Onymous, which shuttered a number of so-called “dark market websites” peddling drugs, weapons, stolen credit card data, fake passports and computer-hacking tools.

And this past July, our joint effort with EC3 shut down the Darkode hacking forum – an underground site where hackers convened to buy, sell and trade malicious software, botnets, intrusion tools and stolen personal information. That operation involved a coalition of 20 nations, led by the U.S. Department of Justice and EC3, and allowed us to charge, arrest or search 70 Darkode members and associates around the world.

The Justice Department will continue to work with foreign law enforcement agencies to prevent and prosecute groups and individuals that illegally use the Internet for crime and exploitation. Of course, as we seek to ensure the safety and integrity of our devices, databases and networks, it is crucial that we work closely not only with other law enforcement officers, but also with the people who create and design these products themselves – the executives, entrepreneurs and engineers who make America’s tech sector the envy of the world.

Our collaboration has been instrumental in a range of important victories, including the takedown of the GameOver Zeus Botnet, an operation in which technology and data-security companies played an invaluable role. We are committed to building on those successes by maintaining strong partnerships with the private sector.

That’s why the department has placed a high priority on entities like the FBI’s National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, which enables collaboration across government to respond to computer intrusions and attacks, and the National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance, which brings together law enforcement, private partners and experts in academia to address the cyber threats we face together.

And it’s why the Attorney General and I have been meeting regularly with industry leaders to foster cooperation and discuss urgent issues – including last week at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where the Attorney General joined with industry leaders to endorse five recommendations for enhancing public/private partnerships to fight cybercrime. We will continue to reach out to representatives of the tech industry, and our door is always open to new ideas for combatting cybercrime and online extremism.

One area where cooperation between the government and the private sector is especially important is in addressing the growing problem of the government’s inability to obtain critical information in electronic form even when we have court authorization to do so. This is the problem known as “going dark.”

While investigations used to rely on physical evidence – like handwritten notes, or documents stored in filing cabinets – as you can imagine, in the 21^st century that kind of evidence is growing scarce. Our ability to track and prosecute criminals now often depends on instant messages, emails and other forms of digital information. In fact, nearly every criminal investigation we undertake at the federal level relies on electronic evidence.

But as new ways of using encryption become an increasingly standard feature of personal electronic devices and messaging platforms, companies are losing the ability to respond to lawful processes. Those materials are increasingly inaccessible to law enforcement officers, even when we have a warrant to examine them. And we find ourselves facing obstacles which can stop our investigations and prosecutions in their tracks.

The security of our online information is critically important, and so is the legal process that protects our values and our safety. These are complementary, not competing priorities. After all, digital security is a vital tool, but it is not a cure-all – especially when it impedes our ability to protect ourselves and each other in the physical world.

The Department of Justice is completely committed to seeking and obtaining judicial authorization for electronic evidence collection in all appropriate circumstances. But once that authorization is obtained, we need to be able to act on it if we are to keep our communities safe and our country secure.

From gang activity to child abductions to national security threats, the ability to access electronic evidence in a timely manner is often essential to successfully conducting lawful investigations and preventing harm to potential victims.

As FBI Director [James] Comey recently said, in May, two terrorists attempted to kill a lot of people. One of the terrorists exchanged 109 messages with an overseas terrorist. We have no idea what he said because it was encrypted. That is a big problem. We have to grapple with it.

That’s why the Justice Department and organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association and the Major Cities Chiefs Association feel strongly that there needs to be a way for law enforcement to retrieve critical information in cases where it’s necessary and authorized. We are committed to working with innovators, leaders and problem-solvers like you to figure out how we can best meet this public need together.

Of course, our interest in working together with you extends beyond this particular issue. The Internet has so fundamentally changed the way we live our lives that there are times when institutions like law enforcement must evolve. And as we seek to adapt to this new reality in a wide variety of ways, your creativity, your expertise and your leadership can help us ensure that the innovations we enjoy will benefit and protect the American people – and not those who would harm them or their liberties and rights.

We understand that this is no easy task. These are novel and difficult challenges. But what makes us confident about our ability to succeed is that, throughout our history, this country has always found a way to move forward while retaining the values that make us who we are. We are certain that we will do the same in the digital age. And together, we will build a brighter, safer and more prosperous future for all.

Thank you for your ongoing cooperation in that effort, and for your commitment to our shared goals. I look forward to all that we will accomplish – together – in the weeks and months ahead.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at the American Correctional Association Winter Conference

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good afternoon and thank you for that warm welcome. I want to thank Governor [John Bel] Edwards for that very kind introduction; for his lifelong commitment to law enforcement; and for his thoughtful leadership in promoting evidence-based, proven strategies for strengthening the work that we are here to discuss. I also want to thank Executive Director [Jim] Gondles for inviting me to address you and for his decades of outstanding work in law enforcement and corrections. Thanks to all of the distinguished experts and passionate advocates who are here with us today. And I want to take a moment to thank our extraordinary correctional staff and to recognize the outstanding and challenging work that they perform every day. Your efforts may not often make headlines and they rarely receive the praise they deserve. But I know, as you do, that your work as law enforcement officers – and you are law enforcement officers in the clearest sense – is profoundly important, deeply necessary and essential to fulfilling the Justice Department’s sacred mission. You defend the American people and protect our values; you build safer communities and reduce crime and exploitation. I am proud to serve alongside you in that effort.

It’s a pleasure to join you all here in New Orleans as we explore new ways to protect public safety and promote justice throughout the United States. That effort is an essential part of this country’s founding mission to provide liberty, justice and equality for all – and for more than 140 years, the American Correctional Association (ACA) has been devoted to holding our correctional institutions to those ideals. By maintaining the highest ethical standards among correctional workers and administrators at all levels, you ensure that incarcerated people are treated fairly, with decency and with respect for their humanity. By advancing research, you help the public and policymakers understand where our system falls short and how it can be made stronger. And by promoting rehabilitation and reentry, you stand for the principle that those who have done their time deserve a meaningful second chance at a better life; that all of us are more than the worst thing we have ever done. As your founders wrote a century and a half ago in the ACA’s Declaration of Principles: “The state has not discharged its whole duty to the criminal when it has punished him, nor even when it has reformed him. Having raised him up, it has further duty to aid in holding him up.” You have always been at the forefront of corrections policy in the United States and as a result of your efforts, our society is fairer, safer and stronger today.

It is essential that we recognize and celebrate the progress made by organizations like the ACA – but we must also leverage that progress to propel us forward. The criminal justice system as a whole still faces real and important challenges. A cycle of poverty and incarceration cuts through too many of our communities. Harsh mandatory sentences continue to strain our prisons and jails with too many individuals who have committed nonviolent, low-level drug crimes, making it difficult to allocate scarce resources effectively. Funding for rehabilitation is hard to come by, denying too many inmates the programs and skills they need to successfully return home. And even those who do receive training are released into a society filled with unnecessary roadblocks to getting a job and finding a place to live – a counterproductive system that makes it easier for them to slip back into the patterns that landed them in jail in the first place.

Addressing these issues is central to the mission of the ACA. It is also central to the work of the Justice Department and the Obama Administration. In 2013, my predecessor, Attorney General Eric Holder, launched the Smart on Crime initiative – a landmark effort to make federal law enforcement more efficient, more effective and more fair. We shifted our approach away from harsh mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenses, which enabled us to focus on more dangerous defendants and more violent crimes. We also placed an emphasis on rehabilitation and reentry programs that can reduce recidivism and promote public safety. And I am pleased to say that, during the time that Smart on Crime has been in effect, we have seen a reduction in crowding, making our prisons safer while allowing for the delivery of reentry and rehabilitative programs that are so critical to changing lives.

Improving rehabilitation programs and smoothing reentry isn’t just good for inmates; it’s also good for correctional staff and for our communities as a whole. More than 600,000 people are released from federal, state and local prisons every year. These are 600,000 people who are someone’s father, someone’s mother; someone’s brother or sister and someone’s child. Preparing them to find good housing, to be reliable employees, to contribute to their communities and to abide by the law is a critical component of our responsibilities and it has tremendous implications for the safety of our neighborhoods, the health of our economy and the strength of our nation. If we can reduce recidivism by helping motivated individuals successfully reenter society, we can reduce crime across the country – and make our neighborhoods better places to live, work and raise our children.

At the Department of Justice, we are taking our efforts even further. In the last fiscal year alone, our Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has disbursed $53 million in Second Chance Act grants to promising state and local reentry efforts, with a particular focus on populations at the greatest risk of recidivism, including justice-involved youth and people with mental illness. Last year, the Department hired its first-ever Second Chance Fellow, Daryl Atkinson – a formerly incarcerated individual who went on to earn a law degree and who now advises the Justice Department on issues related to reentry. And through the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, which I have the privilege of chairing, the department is working closely with a number of Cabinet-level agencies to promote innovative approaches to reintegration – from expanding Pell Grant eligibility with the Department of Education; to studying ways to reduce homelessness with the Department of Health and Human Services; to assisting municipalities with record-cleaning and expungement alongside the Department of Labor.

Of course, we recognize that the work of helping incarcerated individuals succeed outside prison must begin inside prison. That not only involves ensuring humane and safe conditions for inmates and staff – an area in which our Civil Rights Division has collaborated closely with correctional leaders around the country. It also requires commitment to a correctional philosophy that promotes rehabilitation from day one. For decades, the heart of that commitment has been Federal Prison Industries (FPI), which President Franklin Roosevelt established in 1934 to employ thousands of incarcerated people. Today, FPI remains the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) largest and most successful reentry program, helping men and women find a new sense of purpose and develop concrete skills that they can bring back to their communities. I am proud of the work that FPI is doing. My dedication to its continued success is unwavering. And I am pleased to welcome its new CEO, Gary Simpson – an expert in manufacturing operations with 28 years of experience. Over the next few years, Gary will spearhead a business transformation plan to expand FPI’s activities – using a business model that results in no costs to the taxpayers – to ensure that more incarcerated individuals can take advantage of this vital program. I am excited about where his work will take us.

In addition to reinforcing tried-and-true programs like FPI, the Department of Justice is also forging new pathways to better reentry outcomes. This administration took a major step when the Bureau of Prisons created the Reentry Services Division, which has expanded mental health resources, supported substance abuse treatment programs and improved work and educational opportunities that prepare inmates for success after release. BOP also launched a comprehensive assessment of its educational offerings, identifying opportunities for improvement across its correctional institutions. You will hear more about our innovative approach to prison education and adult literacy in the weeks to come. But so far, BOP is more effectively serving inmates between the ages of 18 and 21 who require special learning accommodations and it has also inspired a specialized pilot curriculum for inmates who need instruction at the Pre-K through fifth-grade levels.

Beyond these advances, we are determined to reform areas of longstanding correctional policy that aren’t effective. For decades, prison systems have sought to better manage their facilities by removing certain inmates from the general population – placing them in “restrictive housing” and solitary confinement. While there are times when this practice is necessary for the protection of inmates, personnel, or the public, there is little doubt that has sometimes been used without due consideration and without good cause. We also know that it is possible to reduce the use of restrictive housing while also enhancing staff safety – creating better conditions for inmates and for the brave and hardworking officers charged with their protection. Since January 2012, the federal Bureau of Prisons – under the outstanding leadership of former Director Charles Samuels – has cut its restrictive housing population by 25 percent while achieving significant reductions in staff assaults at the same time. This only serves to underscore that we can change our practices without compromising a bedrock principle of corrections: that the safety of our officers and our inmates comes first.

Last July, in order to examine our own practices further and identify areas for improvement, President Obama directed me to lead a review of restrictive housing across American prisons. I am pleased to say that we have completed our review and delivered our report to the President. And the President has directed the department to implement our recommendations.

In conducting this review, the Department of Justice drew on the extensive experience and collective wisdom of BOP under the leadership of former Director Charles Samuels, advocates and stakeholders who are invested in this issue and, of course, the ACA itself. We developed a series of guiding principles that reflect our values and our goals. For example, we believe that inmates should be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary to ensure their own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates and the public. Correctional systems should always be able to clearly articulate why an inmate is in restrictive housing and those reasons should be supported by objective evidence. And restrictive housing should always serve a specific purpose – with a “step-down” program in place to ultimately return the inmate involved to less restrictive conditions. As you all know, one of the challenges in trying to improve restrictive housing practices is that it currently serves multiple purposes: it is used to address inmates who violate disciplinary rules; to protect inmates who face threats within the prison system; and to isolate inmates who can’t function safely in the general population. And so, in order to make lasting reforms and ensure restrictive housing is used in accordance with these principles, we need a multi-pronged strategy.

To that end, in addition to the guiding principles, the report identifies several specific steps that we must take: We must put reasonable limits on when, why and for how long an inmate can be placed in restrictive housing. We must enhance our efforts to divert high-risk, high-needs inmates – such as those with serious mental illness, or verified security threats – to alternative forms of housing, where they can receive specialized services in less restrictive conditions. We must conduct regular, multidisciplinary staff reviews of inmates’ placement in restrictive housing. We must improve the conditions within restrictive housing to ensure that individuals have more time out of their cells and receive needed programming. We must focus on reentry and make special efforts to ensure that inmates are not placed in restrictive housing during the final months of their prison terms. And we must enhance protections for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women; gay, lesbian and transgender inmates; and especially young people.

Among the actions I will direct BOP to take to meet these goals is an across-the-board reduction of maximum penalties for punitive segregation to curb excessive use of restrictive housing and solitary confinement as punishment – including a ban on restrictive housing as discipline for low-level offenses. I will direct the Bureau to establish new protective custody units so that inmates who need protective custody won’t be unnecessarily placed in solitary confinement. I will direct wardens to increase out-of-cell time in restrictive housing. I will direct the Bureau to allocate $24 million in additional mental health services for federal restrictive housing inmates – a request that will be included in the President’s budget for Fiscal Year 2017. And I am proud to say that, in line with this report’s recommendation, I will direct the Bureau of Prisons to terminate the practice of placing children and juveniles in restrictive housing. In the interest of our children’s safety; in the interest of their development; and in the interest of ensuring their ability to succeed, we are ending this practice once and for all.

I am confident that these policies will help all of us move towards greater transparency, efficiency and effectiveness and they will serve as a valuable roadmap for future reforms in the federal system and in correctional facilities across the country. I know that the ACA is preparing its own recommendations for reducing our reliance on restrictive housing – many of which are in line with our own guiding principles – and I want to applaud you for your leadership and your commitment to this vital issue. I look forward to drawing on your wisdom and experience and collaborating with all of you as we move ahead together.

At the federal level, we’re already addressing one of the main reasons we rely on restrictive housing: the unprecedented growth in the federal prison population over the last three decades. The swelling number of inmates has maxed out our facilities, jeopardized our rehabilitation efforts and made it harder for correctional officers to safely and effectively do their jobs – which are already among the most difficult in law enforcement. To address this problem, Congress established the bipartisan Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections – an independent working group that for the past year has studied overcrowding in federal prisons – and this week, I received the task force’s recommendations. They describe a series of concrete steps that we can take in some of the areas we’ve discussed today. They call for a reassessment of whom we incarcerate and for how long, so that we can be sure that we’re using our system wisely and effectively. They advocate for a culture of safety and rehabilitation in our prisons, including through the use of risk-reduction programming. They augment our reintegration practices by emphasizing supervision and support. And they bolster transparency and accountability to ensure that these goals are being met. The task force also requests federal funding to support these reforms and I urge Congress to take appropriate action. I further call on Congress to pass the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, a bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan basis, as soon as possible. That bill would represent an important step forward on many of these critical issues – and will help us put federal prisons on a path that is more fair and more sustainable for inmates, correctional officers and taxpayers alike.

These are all important steps forward and I am personally committed to expanding on this work in the days and months ahead, while ensuring that we continue to protect our hardworking correctional workers from harm. I am always mindful of the fact that, in performing your duties, you and your colleagues risk your personal safety – and even your lives – every day. And while the Bureau of Prisons took some major steps to bolster protections over the past couple of years, we intend to continue exploring new technologies and new strategies to make your difficult jobs as safe as possible.

It is encouraging that, as a result of the renewed attention these matters are receiving in research, advocacy and media coverage, a growing number of Americans have begun to join our shared call for progress in criminal justice. Particularly in the last few years, thanks in no small part to the leadership and dedication of the people in this room, that chorus has expanded to encompass people from across the political spectrum and from all walks of life. At this critical moment of rare bipartisan agreement, it is more important than ever that we harness this momentum and continue to push forward. With the help of extraordinary partners like you and with the determination and fortitude that you have always shown, I believe that we will make the most of this unique moment of consensus. I believe that we will give every American their chance to lead lives of meaning and purpose. And I believe that when we are finished, we will have left our children a society that is safer, more prosperous and more just.

Thank you for your enduring commitment to this important issue. Thank you for all that you’ve done and continue to do on behalf of the safety and well-being of the American people. And thank you for your steadfast partnership in holding this nation to its own timeless principles. I look forward to all that we will accomplish – together – in the days ahead.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization is threatening funding for critical health programmes like HIV/Aids and tuberculosis in different parts of the world, including Nigeria.

The Conversation Africa’s Adejuwon Soyinka asked professor of virology and former WHO Africa regional virologist Oyewale Tomori why Nigeria is heavily dependent on US funding for some of its health programmes, what’s at risk and how to mitigate the impact.

How dependent is Nigeria on US funding for health?

Sadly, Nigeria and many African countries are too dependent on US funding and other donor funding for basic health activities and interventions. These activities are the normal function of a good and responsive government which is committed to the welfare of citizens.

According to a US embassy publication, since 2021, the US has committed to providing nearly US$20 billion in health programmes in Africa. The report says in 2023 alone, the US invested over US$600 million in health assistance in Nigeria. That is about 21% of Nigeria’s 2023 annual health budget.

Nigeria has, over the years, allocated on the average about 5% of the national budget to health. Three quarters of that covers recurrent expenditure like salaries.

Nigeria’s proposed 2025 budget is ₦49.74 trillion (US$33 billion), of which ₦2.4 trillion (US$1.6 billion) (4.8%) is allocated to health. This is lower than the 5.15% allocated to health in the 2024 budget.

The private sector plays a significant role in the Nigeria’s healthcare system, providing close to 60% of healthcare services.

In recent years, traditional medicine is increasingly offering complementary and alternative medicine in support of the services provided by the federal, state and local government areas levels.

What health programmes does the US fund in Nigeria?

The US support is focused on preventing malaria, under the US President’s Malaria Initiative; ending HIV, through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; and delivering vaccines (COVID, polio, rotavirus, IPV2 and HPV).

Malaria is a major public health concern in Nigeria. In 2021, there were an estimated 68 million cases of malaria and 194,000 deaths. Nigeria has the highest burden of malaria globally, nearly 27% of the global malaria burden.

Nigeria has a high burden of HIV – fourth in the world. A large number of Nigerians live with the virus. The national agency responsible for AIDS control reported a rate of 1,400 new HIV cases per week in 2023.

Nigeria has experienced outbreaks of yellow fever, meningitis, cholera, Lassa fever and COVID-19.

In addition to helping with managing these major diseases, the US government also provided funds to strengthen the country’s ability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from emerging public health threats.

With these funds, a Public Health Emergency Management Programme was established and national disease surveillance systems were upgraded. Nigeria’s laboratory diagnostics were enhanced to test for Ebola, mpox, yellow fever, measles, Lassa fever, cholera and cerebrospinal meningitis.

Other countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, the UK) also provided support through building and equipping laboratories and training health workers.

What’s most at risk?

Interventions most at risk are those of which the Nigerian government has abdicated its responsibilities to the donors. They include provision of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, insecticide-treated bed nets, malaria preventive treatments in pregnancy, provision of fast acting malaria medicines and insecticide for home spraying.

The following HIV interventions are likely to be adversely affected: HIV counselling and testing services, especially for pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and the care of people living with HIV with TB/HIV services, as well as care and support for orphans and vulnerable children.

Sustaining laboratory capacity for rapid disease diagnosis will suffer a major setback with reduced or lack of reagents and consumables.

A huge amount of laboratory equipment is provided by donors. Servicing and replacement of equipment will be affected.

The Nigerian health sector’s challenges include inadequate funding, shortage of healthcare professionals, poor access to healthcare due to cost, poor infrastructure, and high prevalence of preventable diseases.

Cutting off US money is not likely to affect the shortage of healthcare professionals, as the major reason for the shortage is their deteriorating work environment and unsafe social environment. This environment was created by years of economic downturn and social insecurity in Nigeria.

Why is Nigeria still so reliant on US funding?

I think Nigeria lacks national pride as it begs for assistance to provide what it already has the resources for. The government seems to place the well-being of the citizens on a secondary status.

Many African governments assume the world owes Africa compensation for colonial activities. But to me, the danger to Nigeria’s freedom from dependency is not truly knowing what we are, who we are, and how endowed we are.

The world describes Nigeria as “resource limited” and, without thinking, Nigerians accept such name calling. Nigeria is not resource-limited, it is resource wasteful. Nigeria is not resource constrained; it is corruption constrained. Until Nigerians know who and what we are, we will never find the solution to our problems.

Nigeria’s acceptance of the tag “resource-limited” drives it to beg for assistance even in areas of its highest capability, capacity and competence and where it has highly trained people. Like disease prevention and control.

Africa has since the 1960s experienced numerous outbreaks of diseases and has acquired significant expertise in disease prevention and control. An example is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, which was brought under control within three months with only 20 cases and eight deaths.

This was a disease that raged for three years and ravaged three countries: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It was reported in seven others with 28,600 cases and 11,326 deaths.

In Nigeria, the country coordinated response activities which were anchored on the participation of the community. The community was part of disease investigation, contact tracing, isolation of cases and adoption of infection, prevention and control interventions.

How can Nigeria mitigate the impact?

Nigeria must immediately provide emergency funds to cover the shortfall arising from the action of the US government. What Trump has done should have been anticipated, because he did the same things during his first term of office.

Nigeria must re-order its priorities, and provide funds to create and sustain an enabling environment for talented human resources to function effectively for disease control and prevention.

The country must prioritise disease prevention and control (in that order) through adequate and sustained funding of disease surveillance activities at all levels of governance.

Nigeria needs to decentralise disease surveillance, prevention and control by enabling states and local government areas to take responsibility. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention should coordinate state and local government areas activities, instead of acting as the controller of diseases in Nigeria.

Oyewale Tomori 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. US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose – https://theconversation.com/us-health-funding-cuts-what-nigeria-stands-to-lose-248921

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s second tone: authoritarian, radical and triumphalist in a divided US

Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, Spécialiste de la politique américaine, Auteurs historiques The Conversation France

US President Donald Trump’s inaugural address on January 20 revealed the key themes of his rhetoric–triumphalism and overt authoritarianism–and provided insight into the programme he wants to implement. However, accomplishing his goals will not be easy amid deep divisions within the country that narrowly elected him.

The triumphant hero: martyr and messiah

In his 2017 inaugural address, Trump delivered a populist message decrying “the establishment” for the “carnage” afflicting “forgotten Americans”. Eight years later, in the longest inaugural speech in four decades, he painted a starkly different picture–one of a victorious and ambitious country with himself as both its savior and an embodiment of its triumph.

Trump used the words “I,” “me” and “my” 50 times in his 2025 address, compared to just four in 2017, deliberately merging his personal identity with that of the nation.

J. Viala-Gaudefroy, Fourni par l’auteur

He cast himself as both a hero-martyr –“tested and challenged more than any president in our 250-year history”– and the sole leader capable of solving the country’s problems. He linked his personal journey to divine intervention, declaring that God had saved him on July 13, the day he survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, “I was saved by God to make America great again.”

A radical crackdown on immigration

Trump’s stance on immigration is significantly more extreme than his 2017 agenda. While his first term focused on reinforcing borders, he now frames illegal immigration as an “invasion” requiring military intervention. On inauguration day, the president signed several executive orders, including one seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship despite its protection under the 14th Amendment. His hardline approach energizes supporters within his conservative base, some of whom subscribe to the “great replacement” theory and view his policies as necessary to preserve American identity.

Culture wars: race, gender and education

In his second inaugural address, Trump expanded his rhetoric to encompass culture war issues, aggressively targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in US workplaces. He accused the state of “socially engineering race and gender into every aspect of public and private life”, and then began dismantling programmes promoting equality, including recruitment efforts aimed at hiring racial and sexual minorities within the federal government.

His executive orders rescind measures dating back to the Civil Rights era, including one from president Lyndon B. Johnson mandating equal opportunity policies for federal contractors. Echoing president Ronald Reagan, Trump framed these actions in anti-racist language –“We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based”– disregarding the well-documented realities of systemic racism.

Trump also asserted that “there are only two genders, male and female”, and has signed an order recognizing only biological sex at birth. Framing this move as a defense of women, he argues that their “safe spaces”, including bathrooms and sports competitions, must be protected from individuals who “identify” as female.

In education, he decried critical perspectives on US history as “unpatriotic”, insisting that schools instill national pride instead of “teaching our children to hate our country”. His plan includes reducing or eliminating federal funding for schools that teach “inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content” or mandate vaccines and mask-wearing–despite education policy largely falling under state jurisdiction.

Reviving founding myths

Trump’s historical narrative is steeped in romanticized patriotism. He revived the myth of “the frontier”, a late 19th century ideal portraying westward expansion as the ultimate symbol of American dynamism. This narrative ignores histories of the genocide of indigenous peoples and environmental destruction.

His vision of “inexhaustible” natural resources –particularly shale oil and gas, described as “liquid gold”– reflects this ideology of relentless economic expansion and 19th century “bonanza economics”. By rejecting US conservationist traditions, Trump is prioritizing industrial growth over environmental sustainability.

Expansionism reimagined: from the frontier to space

Trump draws inspiration from president William McKinley (1897–1901), an advocate of expansionism during the Spanish-American War, which brought territories such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico under US control. Reviving the concept of “manifest destiny”, he merged exceptionalism with expansionism, vowing to “plant the American flag on Mars.”

Trump restated his intention to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”–a gesture with little practical impact given that much of the gulf lies outside US territory. While he has expressed interest in purchasing Greenland (which he has also claimed to be willing to take over) and even annexing Canada, he mentioned neither in his inaugural speech. However, he did promise to take control of the Panama Canal, justifying the move with a series of lies and exaggerations regarding its history and operation.

A new golden age or “Gilded Age”?

Trump’s admiration for McKinley extends to his economic policies. He envisions a protectionist strategy driving national reindustrialization. Yet, McKinley’s era–the “Gilded Age”–was marked by extreme inequality, a lack of income and corporate taxes, minimal regulation and rampant corruption. The wealthiest figures of the time, later dubbed “robber barons”, mirror the oligarchic ambitions of Trump’s current supporters.

Ironically, as economist Douglas A. Irwin notes, the economic prosperity of the late 19th century was not driven by tariffs but by mass immigration. Between 1870 and 1913, the US population doubled due to an influx of unskilled laborers, a reality at odds with Trump’s strict immigration agenda.

A nation divided under an assertive authoritarianism

Trump’s vision, as outlined in his speech, is one of maximal presidential power, where justice is subordinated to political goals. His decision to pardon over 1,500 individuals convicted for their involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot underscores this authoritarian approach, reinforcing the idea that traditional laws do not apply to his most loyal and even violent supporters.

He has also launched a sweeping purge of the federal administration, citing “integrity, competence, and loyalty” as guiding values. Additionally, he has openly planned to use the Justice Department and FBI for political purposes.

Unlike previous presidents, Trump made no effort to unite a deeply divided nation during his address. He ignored the tradition of acknowledging his predecessor, Joe Biden, and instead declared his electoral victory proof that “the entire nation is rallying behind our agenda.”

However, the US remains fractured politically. Trump secured less than 50% of the popular vote in the November election, his party holds the narrowest House majority since the 1930s, and he entered office with one of the lowest initial approval ratings in 70 years–just 47%. His personal favorability was even lower, hovering around 41% (Reuters, NPR).

This polarization is evident in the public reaction to his most controversial policies, such as his pardoning of the January 6 rioters just after his inaugural address. While his base celebrates these decisions, the broader American public largely disapproves. The fundamental question remains: can US institutions withstand the growing tensions? Without majority support, realising Trump’s most radical societal and political agenda may prove an uphill battle.

Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Trump’s second tone: authoritarian, radical and triumphalist in a divided US – https://theconversation.com/trumps-second-tone-authoritarian-radical-and-triumphalist-in-a-divided-us-248502

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Cornyn, Fetterman Introduce Bill to Help Strengthen At-Risk Homes Against Natural Disasters
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Fetterman (D-PA) today introduced the Promoting Resilient Buildings Act, which would improve the resilience of homes at risk of being impacted by natural disasters by allowing more states and local communities to be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program:

“Natural disasters can wreak havoc on homes and cause devastating and costly hardships for Texans in their aftermath,” said Sen. Cornyn. “This legislation would help homeowners update at-risk homes in a cost-efficient way and help more families in Texas and across the country prepare for future storms.”

“Too many American families have seen their homes damaged or destroyed by extreme weather and other disasters,” said Sen. Fetterman. “We can’t afford to keep rebuilding the same way and expecting different results. Just look at the devastation from Hurricane Debby—thousands of Pennsylvania families lost everything last summer and are still struggling to recover. This bill is a practical solution that will help make it easier for people to secure their homes before disaster strikes. I’m proud to team up with Senator Cornyn to get this done.”

Background:

This legislation would improve resilience of homes by allowing more states and local communities to be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. It would ensure state and local governments retain control over the building code adoption process while advancing housing resilience through a practical, targeted approach. A key component of this legislation is the Residential Retrofit and Resilience Pilot Program, which provides a cost-effective way to strengthen older and at-risk homes against natural disasters without imposing unnecessary mandates on new construction and limits funding to 10% of Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program’s annual budget.

The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act would:
- Strengthen at-risk homes by providing funding for elevations, flood-proofing, tornado-safe rooms, seismic retrofits, wildfire mitigation, and wind-resistant construction;
- Preserve local authority and prevents unfunded mandates by restoring the definition of “latest published editions” of building codes for FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program to include the two most recent editions, allowing states to adopt the most appropriate codes for their communities;
- Improve access to FEMA mitigation funding and prioritize financial need;
- And establish a pilot program under Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program to provide grants for residential resilience retrofits in a fiscally responsible way and prioritize the homes most vulnerable to disasters.
This legislation is endorsed by the National Association of Homebuilders.
MIL OSI USA News –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: InnovateUkraine opens second round of investment for clean energy projects
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
English

Українська

Additional £17m will foster UK-Ukraine collaboration in the clean energy field.
InnovateUkraine’s second round will focus on low-carbon solutions to boost Ukraine’s energy resilience

First InnovateUkraine cohort preparing for demonstration and accelerator stage

The UK will invest £17 million in innovative energy projects to support the recovery and future sustainability of Ukraine’s energy system. The funding announced during the visit of Foreign Secretary David Lammy to Kyiv will support the second round of the InnovateUkraine competition, a challenge fund to pilot low-carbon solutions tailored to Ukraine’s energy needs.

The second round of InnovateUkraine will spur innovative collaborations between British, Ukrainian and international businesses and research institutions, to develop the scalable and sustainable energy innovations of the future.

InnovateUkraine 2 will focus on the following technologies:

Smart green grids

Renewable generation

Renewable heat

Green fuels

Low-carbon buildings and homes

Industrial decarbonisation

Repurposing existing energy infrastructure

The British Ambassador to Ukraine, Martin Harris said:

I am proud that the UK is further increasing its funding to the Ukrainian energy sector. This latest contribution underpins our commitments under the 100-Year Partnership, signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy in January.

These projects, led jointly by British and Ukrainian business, universities, and civil society, will help both our countries develop clean and sustainable energy solutions for the future.

InnovateUkraine is a showcase for the forward-looking partnership between our countries. The UK is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine for the next century.

Applications for InnovateUkraine Round 2 will open in mid-March 2025. Once they have undergone screening, successful projects will run for 24 months from late 2025. The teams will receive support and guidance from an accelerator programme, to help with attracting further investment.

InnovateUkraine’s first cohort of projects is already transforming the lives of the Ukrainian people by creating reliable and novel methods of heating and powering buildings, as well as fuelling the imagination of the next generation of scientists and innovators.

These projects include: a new, locally manufacturable battery storage technology which potentially undercuts and outperforms existing technologies; a technology which allows the upcycling of waste concrete to dramatically reduce the embodied emissions of new buildings and structures; and a new tool to make production of geothermal energy in Ukraine more efficient and ripe for investment.

To find out more about the scope and eligibility requirements, please visit: www.innovateukraine.io

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)

Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Published 5 February 2025
MIL OSI United Kingdom –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Sentenced to 44 Years in Prison for Terrorism Offenses

Source: US State of California

Minh Quang Pham, also known as “Amim”, 41, was sentenced today to 44 years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release for attempted suicide bombing in alliance with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

“The defendant was sentenced for an attempt to commit an act of terrorism and plotting a suicide bombing on behalf of AQAP,” said Devin DeBacker, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “The Justice Department will not rest in seeking justice for acts of terrorism and will continue to thwart any attempt to jeopardize global security.”

“Pham coordinated with known terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi on a plot to conduct a suicide bombing at Heathrow International Airport which could have killed or injured many people, but fortunately that plan was stopped,” said Assistant Director David J. Scott of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “Pham also tried to recruit others to commit acts of terrorism. The FBI will work with our partners to hold accountable those who align themselves with terrorist organizations and attempt to carry out acts of violence.”

“Minh Quang Pham’s actions were not just an affront to the safety of this country, but to the principles of peace and security that we hold dear,” said U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon for the Southern District of New York. “Today’s sentencing underscores our collective resolve to stop terrorism before it occurs, and place would-be terrorists in prison.”

According to court documents, in December 2010, Pham informed others that he planned to travel to Ireland while residing in London. From Ireland, he traveled to Yemen, the principal base of operations for AQAP. Pham traveled to Yemen in order to join AQAP, wage jihad on behalf of AQAP, and martyr himself for AQAP’s cause. After arriving in Yemen, he swore an oath of loyalty to AQAP in the presence of an AQAP commander.

While in Yemen in 2010 and 2011, Pham provided assistance to and received training from Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S.-born senior leader of AQAP. Al-Aulaqi advised Pham to return to the U.K. for the purpose of finding and making contact with individuals who, like Pham, wanted to travel to Yemen to join AQAP. Al-Aulaqi also provided Pham with money, as well as a telephone number and e-mail address that Pham was to use to contact al-Aulaqi upon his return to the U.K. In addition, Pham exchanged his laptop computer with al-Aulaqi, who provided him with a new “clean” laptop to take with him when he returned to the U.K. so that the authorities would not find anything if they searched his computer.

In or about June 2011, prior to his departure from Yemen, Pham approached al-Aulaqi about conducting a suicide attack whereby he would “sacrifice” himself on behalf of AQAP. Al-Aulaqi personally taught Pham how to create a lethal explosive device using household chemicals and directed Pham to detonate such an explosive device at the arrivals area of Heathrow International Airport following Pham’s return to the U.K. in 2011. Al-Aulaqi instructed Pham to carry an explosive in a concealed backpack and target the area where flights arrived from the U.S. or Israel. During this time, Pham made videos depicting his preparation to carry out that attack. In one video, Pham is shown wiring an electrical device for the use of making an explosive device. In another video, he sketches an explosive device to be contained in a backpack, and in a third, Pham wears a backpack with wiring for explosives on it, which he turns on in the video.

During this time, around June or July 2011 — shortly before Pham returned from Yemen to the U.K. — Pham recorded a video in which he attempted to recruit and encourage individuals in the West to engage in violent jihad abroad or in their home countries. In this video, he also expresses a desire to martyr himself. At the outset of this video, consisting of an approximately 13-minute-long monologue, Pham states that, “America itself is not fighting a war with a group or an organization, they are fighting with the army of Allah, the believers.” He continues, in part, “We have that opportunity, that ability to be in their midst, in their land . . . and I advise the brothers inshallah to, whatever you can, to gather and prepare and strike the enemy in their own land . . . The saying, a thousand cuts, you hit them with as much as you can until inshallah the enemy will bleed to death.” During his time in Yemen, Pham also assisted with the preparation and dissemination of AQAP’s propaganda magazine, Inspire. Pham, who has college degrees in both graphic design and animation, worked directly with now-deceased U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, who was a prominent member of AQAP responsible for editing and publishing Inspire.

Pham also received a six-page document entitled “Your Instructions” from al-Aulaqi in Yemen, which provided detailed instructions on how Pham was to commit his suicide attack at Heathrow. The document from al-Aulaqi instructed Pham, “[d]o not do anything for the first three months” and “[y]ou should target Christmas/ New Year season[.]” The instructions from al-Aulaqi provided explicit direction about the importance of using shrapnel to kill as many people as possible, including that “[t]he proper use of shrapnel is as important as the main charge itself. The detonation wave from a main charge of AP by itself is most likely not going to cause the death of anyone except those who are in its immediate vicinity. It is the shrapnel that would do the job. You may imagine this IED as a shotgun that is firing in all directions.” The document therefore instructed Pham to take “special care” with the “proper arrangement and choice of shrapnel,” and to “poison” it to inflict maximum death.

On July 27, 2011, Pham returned to the U.K. Upon his arrival at Heathrow, U.K. authorities detained Pham, searched him, and recovered various materials from him, including a live round of 7.62mm caliber armor-piercing ammunition, which is consistent with ammunition that is used in a Kalashnikov assault rifle, a type of weapon for which Pham received training from AQAP in Yemen. U.K. authorities released Pham and cautioned him for his possession of the live round of ammunition, before, in December 2011, arresting him pursuant to their authorities under U.K. immigration law. In searches of Pham’s residence, other locations, and vehicles, U.K. authorities recovered several pieces of electronic media. Among other things, a forensic analysis of Pham’s electronic media showed that he was accessing speeches and writings of al-Aulaqi as late as December 2011 — months after Pham’s return to the U.K.

On May 24, 2012, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Pham with terrorism offenses and U.S. authorities sought Pham’s extradition from the U.K. He was provisionally arrested with a view towards extradition on June 29, 2012, and he was extradited to the United States on Feb. 26, 2015. On Jan. 8, 2016, Pham pleaded guilty to terrorism offenses related to certain of the same underlying conduct. On May 27, 2016, Pham was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan principally to a term of 40 years in prison. On Sept. 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Pham’s conviction and sentence. Thereafter, Pham made a motion that, based on intervening Supreme Court decisions, resulted in the vacatur of one of the counts of his conviction. Ultimately, the government, with Pham’s consent, moved to vacate Pham’s earlier convictions. On April 8, 2021, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, reinstating certain charges and filing other new charges against Pham, and which formed the basis for Pham’s May 11, 2023, guilty plea and conviction.

The FBI Washington and New York Field Offices investigated the case. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, Metropolitan Police Service/SO 15 Counter Terrorism Command at New Scotland Yard, Crown Prosecution Service, and the Home Office provided assistance in the investigation, extradition, and prosecution of the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacob H. Gutwillig for the Southern District of New York and Trial Attorney John Cella of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section prosecuted the case.

MIL OSI USA News –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks at Second International Conference on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Jennifer [Smith of the International Legal Foundation] for your kind words.

I want to thank Minister of Justice [German] Garavano, Vice-Minister of Justice [Santiago] Otamendi and Chief Federal Public Defender General Stella Maris Martinez of the Government of the Republic of Argentina, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Development Programme and the International Legal Foundation, for coordinating this important gathering so that we may, together, explore how to strengthen and improve access to criminal legal aid globally.

And equally important, I want to thank all of you – the gathered Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Attorneys General, Supreme Court Justices and criminal legal aid providers and experts – for participating in this conference. All of the leaders in this room – and so many others across the globe – are indispensable partners in our efforts to fulfill the promise of access to criminal legal aid. Your work is moving us closer to the ideals of equality, opportunity and justice under law.

The United States participated with enthusiasm at the historic first international convening on criminal legal aid, held in Johannesburg, and it is a privilege to join you in Buenos Aires at the second biannual conference.

Today, with our Presidential election just concluded, I address you not only as an official of the United States Department of Justice, but also as a representative of American democracy. Since George Washington first relinquished his office to incoming President John Adams in 1797, a peaceful transition of power has symbolized the stability of the United States government. On January 20, for the 44th time, a President will transfer his authority and responsibilities to his democratically elected successor. With that transition may come changes in policies and priorities. That is normal and in the natural course. But what will not change – what has not changed for over 200 years, from Administration to Administration – is the promise that all people – regardless of wealth or want, status or stature, color or creed – are entitled to a set of undeniable rights: equal protection, fundamental fairness and impartial justice.

This commitment to equal justice is rooted in the founding ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   It has been enshrined by our Supreme Court in milestone decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down racial segregation in schools, and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to a lawyer whether or not that person can afford one. It has been embraced by Presidents of both parties, as exemplified by the creation of the Legal Services Corporation, the largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans, by President Richard Nixon and President Bill Clinton’s signing of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which provides legal aid for victims of domestic violence. And it is embodied in the renewed debate on the criminal justice system, in which Americans from a range of backgrounds and political beliefs have come to agree on the need to address persistent inequities and inefficiencies in our criminal justice system, from the fairness of our sentencing laws, to the injustice in imposing fines and fees against those unable to pay, to how we reintegrate into civic and economic life those individuals convicted of crimes who have paid their debt to society.

Our progress towards fulfilling these promises has not been uninterrupted. At times, we have made great strides, dedicating resources, energy and ideas to the task. At other times, we have fallen short of our own ideals. But with each triumph and setback, we have been reminded that justice is as much a journey as it is a destination – as much a process as it is an outcome – and that the fairest criminal justice system gives equal attention to both.

Addressing this challenge has been a priority of the Department of Justice in the eight years of the Obama Administration. In 2010, the department launched the Office of Access to Justice – which I oversee and which seeks to improve access to legal aid to everyone in the United States who needs it. Much of the Office’s work is directed at strengthening criminal defense for the poor by focusing on many of the same values outlined in the 2012 U.N. Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems.

Among our most significant accomplishments has been to ensure the reality of Gideon’s promise, for the right to counsel is not only a constitutional imperative but vital to the effective functioning – and legitimacy – of the U.S. criminal justice system. Fulfilling this promise is not easy. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of public defenders – the front-line lawyers in our country who provide legal aid to indigent criminal defendants – increased by only four percent while their caseload increased by 20 percent. When managing such huge caseloads, it is difficult and often times impossible, for public defenders to carry out their legal and ethical duties to their clients. To help alleviate that problem, the Department of Justice has awarded millions of dollars to cities, states and defense advocacy organizations to support their indigent defense work. These awards expanded the number of cities that participate in the department’s “Smart Defense” program, where cities use data, research and research partnerships to enhance criminal justice systems and programs. These funds have also been invested in bringing risk assessment to the pre-trial detention stage, so that judges are making informed pre-trial release decisions that improve cost-effectiveness while protecting public safety and defendants’ due process, and to ensure that our public defenders have the skills necessary to be effective pretrial advocates.   And where states have proven unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to public defender services, the department has filed amicus briefs in our courts arguing that it is a constructive denial of the constitutional right to counsel for a public defender system to be so under-resourced, so understaffed and so underfunded that an indigent defendant has access to counsel in name only.

The priority on access to criminal legal aid has extended to forging partnerships with American Indian tribes – our nation’s indigenous communities. As Robert Kennedy rightly noted when he served as Attorney General, it is a tragic irony that the first Americans have endured a long and painful history of broken promises, deferred action and denied rights at the hands of the United States Government. As one of many steps taken by the Justice Department to right these injustices, we have authored and supported landmark legislation to expand American Indian tribal governments’ criminal jurisdiction and sentencing authority while at the same time enhancing protections for criminal defendants in tribal courts. To further that effort, the department has worked hard to support tribes through funding and training that improves the trial skills of tribal public defenders as well judges and prosecutors.

Of course, advancing access to justice for all also requires that we look critically at the Justice Department’s own role – and its own responsibility – as a central player in the federal criminal justice system. Three years ago, the department launched the Smart on Crime initiative – a groundbreaking effort designed to reorient the way we approach criminal justice issues by diminishing the use of harsh mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenses; investing in rehabilitation and reentry programs that can reduce the likelihood of recidivism; and supporting vulnerable communities to prevent them from being caught up in the criminal justice system in the first place. Additionally, we have embarked on an historic clemency initiative, allowing the President to commute sentences for more individuals than the last 11 Presidents combined. And we have worked hard to get the incentives right in ensuring access to counsel in the federal system, including no longer requiring defendants in plea deals to waive future claims about whether their counsel was effective, and no longer allowing an immigrant convicted of a crime to be found deportable on the basis of alleged facts never established in the criminal case – a process unfair to immigrants who lack counsel and who may have agreed to plead guilty specifically to avoid immigration consequences.

Internationally, we have been proud partners with you on promoting equal access to justice, both in the criminal and civil arenas. Since the U.N.’s unanimous adoption, just over a year ago, of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, we have been working with the international community to breathe life into Global Goal 16, which calls on countries – including the United States – to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” To that end, the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable (LAIR) was formally established.

The Roundtable works to identify how and when legal aid can improve federal programs that serve our nation’s vulnerable and underserved populations. By integrating civil legal aid into a wide array of federal programs designed to improve access to housing, health care services, employment and education, and enhance family stability and public safety, the programs are strengthened and objectives better met. This month, the Roundtable will issue its first annual report to the President. This report will detail the history of this interagency effort and provide concrete examples of how civil legal aid has been integrated into federal programs that support the poor and vulnerable.

The Roundtable’s report will not be our only effort to track the progress toward fulfilling Goal 16 – and specifically Target 16.3, which calls on countries to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” In September, I announced the United States’ commitment to identifying national indicators for Target 16.3, joining other nations around the world, including in the Americas, who have started regional efforts to identify indicators. The United States’ effort, which is being led by the Department of Justice, and includes experts from across the federal government, will help develop national criminal and civil access to justice indicators so that we can rigorously gauge our progress towards the goal of equal justice for all Americans.   While we are still assessing what these indicators might be, we are exploring whether we can track the impact of criminal and civil legal aid on myriad aspects of the justice system.

And because the United States is so strongly supportive of ensuring quality and effective criminal defense, we introduced the groundbreaking resolution at this year’s United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (UN Crime Commission) that you heard about yesterday to promote access to indigent defense, including through the creation of national, regional and international networks of legal aid providers. Resolution 25/2: Promoting legal aid builds on past international activity, including the 2012 U.N. Principles and Guidelines, and on the common sense idea that the best way to improve defense services across the globe is through peer-to-peer exchanges and learning. The United States stands ready to share its experiences in promoting indigent defense and to learn from yours.

Let me end where I began: by thanking all of you for your participation in this conference, and for your commitment and perseverance to the work of promoting equal access to justice. When my predecessor Tony West spoke at the inaugural gathering in South Africa, he was clear-eyed about both the progress that had been made in the provision of the right to counsel and the hard work that remained to be done. Two years later, I echo Tony’s message. Global efforts to support the right to counsel have never been stronger. But we have much left to do.

Conferences like this one are a beginning not an end.   Long after this conference concludes, after all of us have returned home, after all the keynote speeches have been given and outcome documents adopted, there will remain the work of continuing to build criminal and civil legal systems that deliver the promise of equal justice under law for every individual, regardless of where they were born, their color or class, their religious faith or their sexual orientation. That work will not be easy. The progress will not always be uninterrupted. But rest assured that the United States stands with you in this mutual endeavor. We will remain an outspoken advocate on the importance of access to criminal legal aid at home and abroad.   We will continue to be a staunch ally in the fight for justice. And we will remain a steadfast partner in the endeavor to build legal systems that are fair and effective for all. I look forward to all that we will achieve – together – in the years ahead. Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks at 2016 American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month Observance Program
Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Thank you, Tracy [Toulou], for your kind words and for the contributions you and your dedicated team at the Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) have made to promote tribal justice and public safety in Indian country. And thank you to Director Richard Toscano and the Justice Management Division (JMD) Equal Employment Opportunity Staff (EEOS) for organizing today’s observance program and to Gina Allery and the DOJ Native American Association for their support as well.

In the month of November, we honor the history and traditions of America’s indigenous peoples. We join together today to celebrate American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month and to welcome our keynote speaker, Tracy Canard Goodluck, to the department.

The theme this year – “Serving Our Nations” – captures the work that we together are doing here at the department. That shared commitment to improving the daily lives of tribal communities has made and will continue to make a difference. Here are just a few highlights:
- We worked across components to secure passage of landmark legislation with the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA), which reaffirmed our commitment to building and sustaining healthier, safer tribal communities and renewed our enduring promise to respect sovereignty and self-determination. Our efforts also helped secure passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization, which recognizes tribes’ inherent power to exercise “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” over certain defendants regardless of their Indian or non-Indian status.
- We built and began implementing the Tribal Access Program for National Crime Information (TAP), which provides federally recognized tribes access to national crime information databases for both civil and criminal purposes. Just last month, we announced an expansion of TAP incorporating feedback from participating tribes who identified and shared best practices to further strengthen tribal institutions’ ability to keep communities safe.
- Over the past seven years, the department has awarded over 1,650 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) grant awards to American Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, tribal consortia and tribal designees to improve public safety in Tribal communities and to strengthen tribal justice systems. These figures include 236 CTAS grants totaling more than $102 million that were awarded in the recently completed 2016 grant cycle.
- We established the Gaye Tenoso Indian Country Fellowship. The program honors a former 30-year Department of Justice attorney by creating public service opportunities in Indian country for young lawyers with expertise and a commitment to federal Indian law, tribal law, and Indian country issues.
- We published the Department of Justice Consultation Policy and the Attorney General’s Statement of Principles for Working with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, both of which are intended to guide the work of this department in Indian country going forward.
- We created the Tribal National Leadership Council, a democratically-elected group of tribal leaders responsible for advising the Attorney General.
- We established the National Indian Country Training Initiative to ensure that the department prosecutors, as well as state and tribal criminal justice personnel, receive the training and support needed to address the particular challenges relevant to Indian country.
- And we built law enforcement partnerships between the FBI and sister agencies and identified tribal liaisons within each U.S. Attorney’s Office that has Indian country within its jurisdiction. Indeed, I was privileged to meet many of these dedicated Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in a recent visit to the Flathead Reservation in Montana.
- We have shown that we can collaborate effectively across the department and across the federal government to better serve Indian country. The department’s work on the Indian Child Welfare Act—involving the Environment and Natural Resources Division, the Office of Tribal Justice, the Civil Rights Division, and the Office of Justice Programs, as well as the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services—is just one example. Our efforts have promoted compliance with this important federal law that seeks to keep Indian children with their parents, extended families, and tribal communities.
We can point with pride to the Environment and Natural Resource Division’s (ENRD) work to protect tribal resources, water rights and treaty hunting and fishing rights and to its defense of the Department of the Interior’s authority to acquire land into trust for tribes. Recent victories in both the district court and the court of appeals helped preserve the treaty fishing rights of Pacific Northwest Tribes by removing barriers to salmon passage. ENRD’s efforts recognize the importance of protecting the environment and natural resources of the First Nations, who were also the first environmental stewards of this great land and from whom we still have much to learn.

I am pleased to report that the department has continued to make progress in resolving long-standing tribal trust cases. In 2016 alone, we reached settlements with 17 tribes for almost $493 million. Since the start of the Obama Administration, the department has settled the claims of 104 tribes for a total of $3.35 billion. These settlements represent a significant milestone in improving the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes, and allow the federal government and the tribal nations to move beyond tensions that were exacerbated by litigation.

Even as we celebrate the progress we have made, we must acknowledge that our work is far from finished. We have all been watching events in North Dakota over the weekend. History teaches that we make progress in the face of conflicting views where we honor the right to disagree peacefully with one another. The Justice Department has been in communication with local law enforcement, as well as tribal representatives and protesters, to promote communication and lower tensions. We will continue those efforts.

There are a lot of challenges in Indian country, and it continues to be the responsibility of those of us at the department to identify and correct the injustices that persist. I am proud to be affiliated with a department that does not shy away from tackling those challenges, and embraces the opportunity to work directly with Tribes across the country.

Before we move on to the next part of our program, I would like to recognize the work of Lorraine Edmo, the Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs at the Office on Violence Against Women and a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. She has dedicated her decades-long career to seeking out and correcting injustice in Tribal communities.

Lorraine is retiring soon and will be greatly missed. Her sustained dedication to supporting Tribal communities has been an inspiration. Thank you, Lorraine, for your tremendous service. We are grateful that your husband, Jerry Cordova of the Department of the Interior, is also participating here today. We especially respect public service when it’s a family affair, and we wish you both well.

I now turn to the privilege of introducing our keynote speaker, Tracy Canard Goodluck of the Oneida and Mvskoke Creek Nations. Her passion for education and improving outcomes for students in tribal communities has made her a role model to many. In her current role of Senior Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, Tracy serves as a key liaison to tribal communities for the Administration. Previously, she was a policy advisor at the Domestic Policy Council and, as a Presidential Management Fellow, handled the legislative portfolio for Indian affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior. We are honored to have her here today. Please join me in welcoming Tracy Canard Goodluck.

MIL Security OSI –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Funeral for U.S. Marshals Service Deputy Commander Patrick Carothers

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good afternoon, everyone. To the pastor and members of the Buford Church of God – the spiritual home of the Carothers family; to the President and staff of the Greater Atlanta Christian Academy – the educational home of the Carothers family, who have come together and given us this beautiful service in this special place; Deputy Attorney General [Sally] Yates; Director [David] Harlow; distinguished guests; family and friends; and, most importantly, Terry, Michael, Matthew, Paul, Jessica, and Connor:

I bring you condolences from the entire Department of Justice family, of which Patrick Carothers was a beloved member. And I also bring you condolences from the President and First Lady of the United States, which I will share with you now.

We gather here today with bruised spirits and broken hearts. Whether we knew Patrick Carothers as a colleague, a friend, a father – even if we did not have the privilege of knowing him personally – we feel his loss deeply. And we feel his presence still. I did not have the privilege of meeting Deputy Commander Carothers, but after meeting with his teammates and family today, I feel as if I knew him.

I see him in the heartfelt regard and honor and loyalty of his colleagues; I see him not just in the faces but the faith, the fortitude, and the light in the children he was raising and the family he loved so much. And we all see him in the respect and regard and love of the people whose lives he touched, so many of whom are here today to honor him.

For he was the kind of person we hope our children will grow up to become. He was a person of integrity, who loved his family, strengthened his community, and served his country. He was a person of strength, possessed of quiet courage and deep compassion. And he was a person of action, who chose a career in law enforcement in order to protect the vulnerable and help those who cannot help themselves.

Deputy Commander Carothers represented the very best that our country has to offer. That someone like him should be taken from us in such a senseless way shocks our conscience. It chills our hearts. And it can shake our faith.

I do not claim to have any answers for why this horrible deed happened. Nor do I pretend that our pain can be erased with a few words; true comfort comes only through time and the grace of God. But I do know that Deputy Commander Carothers did not die in vain. For he served the cause of justice. Where justice is present, we glimpse a gentler and more peaceful world, one where every person lives in safety and dignity. Justice challenges us to do our part to bring that world into being. It challenges us to close the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be. It calls each of us to devote our lives to something larger than ourselves.

Patrick Carothers accepted that challenge. For 26 years, he answered that call. He pledged his energy, his talent – and, if necessary, his life – to the safety and well-being of the American people. Taking that pledge made him a U.S. Marshal – a proud member of the nation’s oldest law enforcement agency. Keeping that pledge until his last breath made him a hero. He can stand before his maker and echo Paul’s words to Timothy: “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”

To Deputy Commander Carothers’ fellow Marshals: I want you to know that as your Attorney General, there is nothing more difficult than burying a member of our department – our family. The dangers that you and your fellow law enforcement officers face; the sacrifices that you make; the hazards that you accept: these are never far from my mind and I want you to know how humbled I am by your valor and dedication.

To Deputy Commander Carothers’s relatives and loved ones: my heart aches for you. I can only imagine the depth of your sorrow and the intensity of your pain. Terry, you were clearly Patrick’s light and his strength. And the children that you raised together are a testament to the bond you shared. I especially want to say to Michael, Matthew, Paul, Jessica, and Connor that your father lives on in you. You have clearly inherited his spirit, his strength and his compassion, and he will continue to shape and improve our world through your lives. Please know that the entire Department of Justice family grieves with you and is here for you. In the days ahead, we will strive to honor his legacy not only with our words, but with our deeds; not only by remembering his name, but by continuing his work – his work for a stronger, a safer and a more just United States.

May God bless the memory of Deputy Commander Patrick Carothers, and may He grant him eternal rest and peace.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks Highlighting Elder Justice at the State Of Financial Fraud in America Event
Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you Robert for that kind introduction and for your leadership and dedication as CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). And thank you to the Stanford Center on Longevity and the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, for hosting this conference and for the great work that you do. It is an honor to join with the many people in this audience who dedicate their lives to combatting financial fraud and protecting elderly Americans. This is a noble and enduring effort.

As many people here know, financial fraud targeted at the elderly is a serious problem. At the beginning of 2011, the first Baby Boomers reached the age of 65. I reached that milestone myself just last year. Indeed, 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day, and the percentage of Americas over 65 is growing. 5.8 percent of this group experiences identity theft in a given year. I had that ugly experience just last month. 13.8 percent experiences consumer fraud in a given year. 4.5 percent of people over 50 experience financial fraud in a five-year period. While there are varying accounts about how much the overall financial loss is, it is well into the billions of dollars.

Statistics aside, we are here together because we know all too well that this is a problem that takes a personal toll. Almost all of us know someone who has been the victim of financial fraud. And while it affects people of all ages, it can be especially devastating for elderly people, many of whom are dependent on their savings and are concerned about their own mental decline or other people’s perception of their mental decline.

I recently saw letters written by the victims of a set of schemes that we took action against. One described having sent “hundreds of checks” for a company’s “great offers” and tried to explain to the fraudster that “due to bad eyes, [he] has to use magnifying glasses to read” and had “been caught paying many times for th[e] very same offer.” Another, believing that the con men would send him a promised gift, tried to explain that he had sent his prior payments by money order and was now enclosing cash, “all [he] can send.” Another explained that when she gets the vast inheritance she’d been promised, she would use it to help her family, the homeless and needy children.

The nature and scope of elder fraud varies tremendously. At the Department of Justice, we see small, family based schemes, such as caregivers tricking elderly victims out of their savings or abusing powers of attorney. We see institutional schemes, such as nursing homes that provide unnecessary services or bill for services never provided. And we see global fraud networks that are—quite literally—organized crime. These schemes involve networks of businesses with careful divisions of labor. They target millions of Americans, maintain lists of victims, and, once someone has been duped, target those people again and again. One recent victim wrote a letter explaining: “Each day I keep getting more and more offers and it’s almost impossible for me to keep up with them.”

Large and diverse problems like this require broad based solutions. We at the Department of Justice know we can’t solve this problem alone. Coordination is essential not only with our federal partners, but with local, state and international authorities. And public and private partnerships are key to our understanding of the scope of the problem and to the lasting success of any solution.

Research into basic questions, such as why are elderly people vulnerable, and how can we detect fraud and abuse, is critical to attacking the problem. The FINRA Foundation and Stanford Center on Longevity launched the Financial Fraud Research Center five years ago. As some of your ongoing research has demonstrated, there is a natural decline in cognition as people age, especially ability to think fast and process new information. The elderly are sometimes lonely or otherwise socially isolated. Some are uncomfortable with technology. Many have pools of relatively liquid retirement assets. Some are dependent on caregivers. All of these factors make the elderly particularly susceptible to certain schemes.

There is much more to learn. The Department of Justice has invested in partnerships to help us all better understand the causes and risk factors associated with elder financial exploitation. For example, just a few weeks ago, we announced an award of nearly $800,000 to the Urban Institute and the University of Southern California to develop and test prevention programs that will address elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation. To enhance our understanding of financial exploitation by conservators and guardians, last year our Office for Victims of Crime funded a project to search for innovative, evidence-based programs and practices that successfully detect and remedy conservator fraud. And people like you are furthering our understanding. This conference is highlighting emerging research on susceptibility to fraud and fraud prevention.

Beyond efforts to understand how and why elder fraud occurs, continuing dedication to enforcement is required to stop it. This is not a partisan issue. We have seen Democratic and Republican administrations alike express a shared commitment to using all tools in the Department of Justice’s enforcement arsenal. Back in the 1990s, under Attorney General Reno, the Department of Justice created the Elder Justice Initiative to centralize information, facilitate training, and coordinate within the Department and across the federal government. During the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice initiated an elder mistreatment research grant program, funding cutting edge research on elder abuse and financial exploitation that continues today.

During this Administration, Congress created the Elder Justice Coordinating Council as part of the Affordable Care Act to facilitate interagency cooperation at the highest of levels. At the Department of Justice, we formed the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee’s Elder Justice Working Group, which is comprised of U.S. Attorneys from across the country who are dedicated to improving our information sharing on financial scams targeting the elderly. And just this year, we created ten regional Elder Justice Task Forces that operate throughout the country, partnering with state and local law enforcement and prosecutors to enhance our collective response to elder financial fraud and abuse.

Our Elder Justice Initiative has also been assisting with community capacity building. This includes supporting the training of local law enforcement and prosecutors. And to enhance civil legal aid to seniors, in June 2016, the Department of Justice, in collaboration with the Corporation for National and Community Service, launched the Elder Justice AmeriCorps, the first-ever army of lawyers and paralegals to help elderly victims of abuse and exploitation. The program will support 300 AmeriCorps members throughout the country and is expected to reach over 8,000 older adults over the next two years.

A multi-faceted problem requires coordination between different federal agencies; it demands a whole of government approach. Mail is involved; we must coordinate with the Postal Inspection Service. Money is involved; we must coordinate with the Treasury Department. People target the elderly; we must coordinate with agencies that serve the elderly, such as the Social Security Administration.

And more and more, we are seeing schemes that are highly complex and global. Stopping these schemes require extensive cooperation—not just with state and local authorities, but also across the federal government and with our international counterparts. For example, the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch co-chairs the International Mass-Marketing Fraud Working Group, a network of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Europol, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

We can point to meaningful progress. In the past several years, we have successfully shut down several international lottery scams where con men and women have contacted elderly victims in the United States, told the victims they won cash and prizes, and persuaded them to send thousands of dollars in fees to release the money. Of course, the victims never received cash or prizes in return. In a series of cases, perpetrators made calls from Jamaica using Voice Over Internet Protocol technology that made it appear as if the calls were coming from the United States. They convinced victims to send money to middlemen in South Florida and North Carolina, who forwarded the money to Jamaica. We have had great success breaking up these networks through joint efforts between Jamaican law enforcement and U.S. agencies including the Postal Inspection Service, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Trade Commission and Internal Revenue Service. Since 2009, the Department of Justice has prosecuted or is prosecuting over 100 individuals linked to such lottery schemes, and has convicted and sentenced over 40 defendants.

We have had similar success going after global “psychic schemes.” Con men and women send letters purportedly written by “world-renowned psychics” stating that they had a vision revealing that the recipient has the opportunity to obtain great wealth. The letters appear personalized, refer to the recipient by name, and often contain portions that appear handwritten. The solicitations urge victims to purchase products and services that will ensure this good fortune. Investigations by the Department of Justice and Postal Inspection Service, among others, revealed the complexity of these schemes. Not only were there the fraudsters themselves, but there were separate companies performing different roles, such as processing victim payments and maintaining databases of consumers who responded to solicitations. In a two-week period, one company in the United States processed as much as $500,000 in payments for just one psychic scheme. We have discovered similar companies in Quebec, Hong Kong, Switzerland and France.

Perhaps the most significant example of cooperation to date were our wide-ranging enforcement actions taken in September of this year to dismantle a global network of mass mailing schemes targeting elderly and vulnerable victims. The schemes involved a network with components in Canada, France, India, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. The network included an India-based printer that manufactured solicitations and arranged for bulk shipment to U.S. victims; a mailer in Switzerland; list brokers in the United States who bought and sold lists of victims so that once victims had fallen prey, others could target them; a “caging” service in the Netherlands that collected money; and a Canadian payment processor that, for more than 20 years, helped dozens of international fraudsters gain access to U.S. banks and take money from Americans. Stopping this network involved coordination between the Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Postal Inspection Service, Federal Trade Commission, Iowa Attorney General’s office and counterparts in other countries. Just to give you a sample of the coordinated actions, on Sept. 22, 2016:
- The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control blocked assets from the Canadian payment processor and a network of individuals and entities across 18 countries.
- The Justice Department filed criminal charges and a civil injunction against a Turkish mass mailer.
- The Justice Department brought a series of civil actions to shut down companies based in the United States, India, Switzerland and Singapore. These companies were responsible for mailing millions of multi-piece solicitations to potential victims throughout the United States.
- The Justice Department entered into a consent decree with two Dutch “caging” businesses that collected and forward money. Our efforts were coordinated with Dutch authorities who executed search warrants on the businesses and took control of the Dutch post office boxes used to receive victims’ funds.
- The Federal Trade Commission filed a case against a related mass-mailer, printer, and list broker.
- The Iowa Attorney General negotiated a compliance agreement with two firms that brokered victim lists.
Of course, what matters even more than going after these schemes is preventing people from falling prey in the first place. Here too, federal agencies are working in cooperation and dedicated to the effort. The Department of Justice has distributed educational materials about these kinds of scams, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service has developed an electronic press kit for media outlets, my former colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission operate a “Pass It On” campaign that encourages people to share information about frauds that affect older Americans, the Social Security Administration is educating beneficiaries through its network of over 1,200 field offices nationwide, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has produced a mail fraud alert placemat in coordination with Meals on Wheels America to distribute to seniors nationwide. Similarly, private organizations that work in the area of elder justice and consumer protection are doing their part. For example, AARP will be posting information through its Fraud Watch Network. And the Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, is alerting consumers about a variety of elder scams.

Going forward, the Department of Justice will continue to work with private, local, state, federal and global partners. And we urge all of you to tell us where the Department can do more. The federal government’s work on behalf of the elderly began long before this Administration, and it will continue long after. I expect that my successors, and my successors’ successors, will share our commitment to making sure our parents, grandparents and friends age with grace and dignity. And I look forward to all of you, who have worked so hard in this area, working with the next Administration to combat financial fraud and protect elderly Americans. Thank you again for having me here today.

MIL Security OSI –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at United States Military Academy

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for that warm welcome. I am so grateful to be here today. I also want to thank Lieutenant General [Robert] Caslen and Brigadier General [Diana] Holland for their tremendous leadership here at West Point, and for their gracious invitation to address the Cow Class of the Corps of Cadets. And I want to acknowledge my colleague, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General [Bill] Baer, who is here with me today. Bill does a tremendous job of leading the Justice Department’s Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative, which is our most important program to secure the rights of our men and women in uniform.

What an honor it is to stand before you today in this venerable place. This campus is unlike any other in the United States – and not just because it’s the only one that Benedict Arnold once tried to sell to the British. Few institutions have had a greater hand in molding the United States into the nation it is today than West Point. Your fellow alumni include two distinguished presidents: Dwight Eisenhower, who I believe said that failing to make the West Point baseball team was one of his life’s greatest disappointments, and Ulysses S. Grant, who wrote in his memoirs that each year at West Point “seemed about five times as long” as a year back home. They may have grumbled about their time here by the Hudson – something I am sure you have never done – but this much is clear: the path that led them to the highest office in public service began right here at West Point.

There is no doubt that this institution has a proud and rich history. But West Point is not simply a monument to the past. It is a gateway to our future. And that is why I look on each of you with such great pride and excitement. Because each of you has taken that future into your hands. When you were not yet 18, you made a choice. You chose to embark on an education that demands more of you than almost any other institution demands of students your age. You made a choice to forego many of the traditional comforts of college for a more challenging path. Before you could even vote, you made a choice that for at least the next nine years, the watchwords of your life would be “Duty, Honor, Country.” That is an enormous testament to your character. And that is a tremendous gift to our nation.

I am moved by the sacrifices that you have made, and that you will make. The conflict of my childhood was Vietnam, a place that meant nothing to me until it reached into my world and took my family members away. It’s a history lesson now, but I still vividly remember my cousins and uncle going off to Vietnam, when I was a young girl. My father, a minister, had a family prayer service for them the night before they left. I remember being struck by the magnitude of their sacrifice. It was the first time I ever really knew someone who was prepared to give his or her life for an ideal – for someone else’s freedom. Their country had called and they had answered, and that was more important than their own comfort or safety. Over the years I watched as other family members, including my own brother, made the choice to serve their country in the armed forces. Their example has stayed with me throughout my life, and it has never been far from my mind during my years with the Department of Justice.   That sense of sacrifice and devotion to a greater mission – which was instinctive to my family members who served, and which has brought all of you to West Point – is perhaps the most important ingredient I can think of in the creation of a leader. As a famous graduate of this school, General [Norman] Schwarzkopf, once said: “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.”

And that is what I want to talk to you about today: why we need your character more than ever. It seems that our news cycles too frequently feature stories of rancor and division. Many of those stories give voice to those raising the question of what kind of leadership we want for our nation. I believe the answer to that question can be found here at West Point. And not simply because of your substantive knowledge, or your training to lead one of our most vital institutions in the most difficult of situations. Rather, it is because a West Point education is concerned not only with what you know, but with who you are. It is concerned not only with your mastery of strategy, but with your empathy and ability to understand those who are starkly different from you – whether they serve in your platoon or sit across from you at the negotiation table. It is concerned not only with your physical prowess, but with the resilience of your moral core. It is concerned not just with your sterling credentials, but your resolve to use those abilities to serve others. In short, I believe that your West Point education is giving you the very tools we need in all walks of life, military and civilian alike: the ability – and the responsibility – to bridge the gap among our fellow Americans.

It is clear why you are receiving this important and rigorous education. You will lead men and women through the most trying of circumstances. It will be up to you to show those in your command that their common goals transcend their individual differences. It will be up to you to ask them to do things they may not believe themselves capable of doing. It will be up to you to bring out the best in those you lead. And you will only be able to convince them to do those things if you do them yourself – exactly as you are learning to do here. And when you do that – when you realize that leadership is the ultimate form of service to and for others – then those in your command will surprise you, and themselves, with their selflessness, with their decency, and with their ability to join in a common cause. This is precisely the leadership that we also need, at this moment, in our national discourse, in our communities, and in our homes. Because as challenging as your military career will be, some of your greatest leadership challenges will come when you are out of uniform, in a world that doesn’t always exemplify the lessons you have learned here. How will you lead when a child you know is being bullied for being of a different race or religion? How will you lead when someone with whom you disagree needs your help? How will you lead when someone feels ignored or even targeted by the very government we are all sworn to serve? People will listen and look up to you. What will you say to them? Those are the times when you will truly lean on the lessons of this great institution – that true leaders speak up for those whose voice cannot be heard, protect the weak from the strong, and always focus on the common goals and principles that overcome our differences.

Being a leader often brings fulfillment, recognition and rewards. But it also brings unexpected moments. People once your peers may surprise themselves and you by not being completely happy for you, and that will hurt. Along with the acclaim you will also receive criticism, questioning your decisions, your motives, even your integrity, and that will sting. And, although it may be hard to believe – especially for you engineers out there – there will come a time when you will make mistakes, and disappoint others and yourself. We all fall down. It’s how you get up that tells the world who you are, even more than the rank on your sleeve. And how you respond to these challenges will confirm or deny everything that you have said about leadership in less fraught times. Because these are the times you show the content of your character. These are the times you must summon what is best in you – your courage, your integrity and your honor. These are the moments that count. These are the moments when you realize that true leadership focuses not on you, but on the institution you lead and the mission it serves.

In my life, I have been fortunate that that institution is the Department of Justice, and the mission is the protection of the American people and the upholding of the rule of law. And in my most difficult moments, first as a U.S. Attorney, and now as Attorney General of the United States, I have always been well served by reminding myself that my first responsibility is not to what others think of me, but to what my institution can do for others.

You have also committed to serving an institution: the U.S. military. I have no doubt that you will use your talents to uphold its proud traditions and to leave it an even stronger institution than you found it. We will be a safer and better people for your service defending our country and its values. But I also ask you to consider yourselves servants of these United States. The motto of this institution is not “Duty, Honor, Army” – although it will be, for a brief moment, on December 10. The motto is “Duty, Honor, Country.” And I want you to take that motto seriously. Because the division and disunity that we now see too often is symptomatic of a deeper pain in our people – pain that we must learn to heal. At a time when rhetoric and ideology divide us, and bitterness and mistrust tear at the fabric of our democracy, we need you to model service to a larger cause. We need you to remind us that our responsibility as Americans is to promote the welfare of all our people; to protect the vulnerable and the weak; and to ensure that the nation we leave for our children is better than the one our parents inherited.   We need you to bring us back to the heart of our greatness, the beauty of our different voices, paths and faces coming together as one people. We need you to remind us of what we have achieved together, in the early motto of this great country: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

That is my challenge to you today: be leaders not just of our military, but of our country. Wherever life takes you beyond West Point – whether you stay in the armed forces for life, or whether you choose a different path – I challenge you to continue to be servant leaders. Inspire others to serve causes larger than themselves. Bring the lessons of sacrifice and selflessness that you have learned to our boardrooms, our classrooms, to the halls of Congress. Show the American people that “Duty, Honor, Country,” is a motto not only for the proud few who pass through West Point, but for every person, in every community. You are uniquely positioned to perform this essential work, and as I look out over this exemplary group of men and women, I am filled with hope: hope that we will continue marching together toward a brighter future; hope that we will transcend our divisions and bridge our divides; and hope that our nation’s best days still lie ahead.

I want to thank you all for having me here. I look forward to seeing everything you will achieve as you assume the heavy – and honorable – mantle of leadership.

May God bless you all, and shelter your dreams with his everlasting grace. May God bless all of our men and women in uniform, and hold their safety in the palm of his hand. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Head of the Civil Rights Division Vanita Gupta Delivers Remarks at University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights Conference

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Ted [Shaw], for that warm welcome. I want to thank the University of North Carolina’s Center for Civil Rights for organizing this energizing conference and inviting me to join you today. It’s humbling to be part of a program with such a distinguished group of civil rights leaders. I see many dear friends and colleagues in this room. Through advocacy and academia, through service and leadership – you have devoted your careers to the cause of justice and the fight for equality.

For just over two years, I’ve had the enormous privilege and great honor to lead the Civil Rights Division’s work in that fight. At times, my tenure has been filled with moments of tragedy and anguish. And there is no doubt that events in recent years have exposed and exacerbated stark divisions of ideology and open wounds of racial tension across America. I’ve sat with grieving families who lost their loved ones in officer-involved shootings. I’ve attended funerals of officers killed in the line of duty. I’ve seen how the inequities in our criminal justice system can destroy lives and derail futures. And I’ve been all too aware of how some of the most vulnerable among us encounter a real gap between what the law guarantees, on one hand, and what they experience in their daily lives, on the other – from courtrooms, to voting precincts, to public bathrooms.

Yet I firmly believe that these are also times of possibility, of opportunity and of hope. Because amidst the tragedies and divisions, I’ve seen police officers and residents working together to promote community-oriented policing strategies. I’ve seen firsthand these past two years – in meetings, conferences and roundtables around the country – law enforcement leaders stand up and speak out to transform the profession, embracing de-escalation tactics, procedural justice and a smart-on-crime approach. And I’ve seen how people from different walks of life can come together to engage in America’s imperfect, but unyielding journey of progress towards a more inclusive country and a more just union.

For nearly six decades – from prosecuting the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi; to combating segregation in education; to enforcing the Fair Housing Act; to preventing discrimination in lending, whether in redlining or underwriting; to defending the civil rights of LGBT men and women here in North Carolina – the division’s career lawyers have played a pivotal role in our country’s quest for justice. The division vigorously enforces civil rights laws to make the promises of equal justice, equal protection and equal opportunity real for all. We work to restore faith in the legitimacy of our justice system. And we work to defend the integrity of our democracy. Because discrimination, inequality and injustice don’t only harm individuals. They threaten entire communities. They breed cynicism and despair. And they erode trust in our public institutions – trust essential to upholding the rule of law, to advancing public safety and to engaging in our centuries-old democratic experiment of effective self-governance.

In stark terms and in real time, we’ve seen this connection between discrimination and distrust play out around the country through the lens of community-police relations. Sometimes, a particular incident ignites public outrage and unrest. And let be me clear: when law enforcement officials flout the law, the Civil Rights Division works to prosecute criminal misconduct and hold them accountable. But I’ll be honest with you, the federal statute that applies is narrow. In use-of-force cases, federal law requires us to prove both that the officer used “objectively unreasonable” force and that she or he acted willfully – “for the specific purpose of violating the law” – the highest standard of criminal intent in the federal code. Mistake, misperception, negligence and poor judgment are not prosecutable at the federal level. That said, during this administration, we have charged more than 580 law enforcement officials for committing willful violations of civil rights and related crimes.

But we know that the true causes – the real reasons – for unrest run far deeper than any individual incident. And we know that while public attention to these issues might be new, these causes are long-standing and systemic. We’ve found these causes time and again through several of the 23 civil pattern-or-practice investigations we’ve opened into local police departments during this administration. These cases focus not on individuals but on systems. Broken systems – plagued by unlawful practices and tainted by bias – can devastate a community and corrode public trust, letting down not just the victims of police misconduct but the officers who seek to proudly wear the badge.

We saw the impact of broken systems in Baltimore, where a “zero tolerance” street enforcement strategy became a quest to produce numbers – pedestrian stops of African Americans in particular – regardless of their limited impact on solving crime and the damage they did to community relationships. Officers routinely arrested people for loitering or trespassing if they could not provide a “valid reason” for standing on the sidewalk or near a public housing development. In one instance, a shift commander emailed a template for describing such trespassing arrests. The template had blank fields. Except that it had the words “black male” pre-filled for the suspect description. Blanket assumptions and stereotypes about certain neighborhoods and certain communities led many residents to see the justice system as illegitimate and authorities as corrupt.

We saw the impact of broken systems in Ferguson, where the criminalization of poverty – and intentional racial bias in police and court practices – eroded public trust. The city relied on enforcement strategies “to fill the revenue pipeline” without due consideration for whether officers could better protect the city by focusing on neighborhood policing, rather than debt collection. We found the city issuing multiple citations with excessive fines and fees for minor violations – $302 for jaywalking, $427 for disturbing the peace and $531 for allowing high grass and weeds to grow on your lawn – and then arresting and even jailing residents when they couldn’t afford to pay.

We saw the impact of broken systems in New Orleans as well, where officers lacked the ability to effectively communicate with immigrant communities. At the time of our investigation, the New Orleans Police Department relied primarily on just two officers – one fluent in Spanish and one fluent in Vietnamese – to assist on all service calls and investigations involving limited English proficient residents. As one Spanish-speaking immigrant testified, “[W]e don’t feel safe, we don’t feel supported. We, the immigrants don’t feel support from them [the police]. We cannot call them for any kind of problem for help.”

And we saw the impact of broken systems in Seattle, where the use of excessive force against individuals in crisis left families dealing with mental illness or addiction with nowhere to turn for help, without access to services and too fearful to call the police when the denial of treatment created dangerous situations for themselves and their loved ones.

While each of these communities struggled with unique problems, the broken systems and police misconduct caused residents to view the police, the courts or even government itself as arbitrary, biased and unfair. And when residents didn’t trust law enforcement, they became less willing to share information – information critical to solving and preventing crimes. Entire communities felt that the justice system was not protecting or serving them, perpetuating disillusionment and exacerbating tensions. Simply put, unconstitutional policing threatens the security and well-being of our communities. And that hurts us all.

Of course, broken systems and unconstitutional policing practices don’t operate in isolation from other inequities in our justice system. Indeed, throughout the justice system – from arraignment to sentencing – when people experience a two-tiered system of justice that stacks the deck against those living in poverty, these broader failures erodes trust, too. The entire Department of Justice – including our team at the Office for Access to Justice, led by Director Lisa Foster – has helped lead the charge against criminal justice policies that punish poverty. We’ve sent a dear colleague letter to state and local judges to help end unlawful fine and fee practices that result in inescapable cycles of debt and incarceration. We’ve shined a light on the right-to-counsel crisis by filing briefs around the country – arguing that if due to underfunding and high workloads, public defenders can’t meaningfully test the prosecution’s case, that violates the Sixth Amendment. We’ve taken on the criminalization of homelessness, arguing that because every human being must sleep at some time and in some place, arresting and punishing a person for sleeping in public – when there aren’t enough shelter beds in the city and she has nowhere else to go – criminalizes the status of being homeless. We’ve addressed unlawful bail practices that result in jailing presumptively innocent people solely because of their poverty, without consideration of their ability to pay or alternatives to incarceration, causing people to lose their jobs, their health benefits or their homes without any benefit to public safety. As with the issue of systemic police misconduct, addressing these issues – by preventing the punishment of poverty and by ensuring access to justice for all – is critical to restoring and maintaining the public’s faith in the legitimacy of our institutions and the integrity of our democracy.

The integrity of our democracy also depends on ensuring that every eligible voter can participate in the electoral process. Voting forms the bedrock of our democracy. In our democracy, no matter what policy issue we care about most, we get closer to these goals through the ballot box. The Justice Department works to ensure that every eligible voter enjoys the full range of voting rights protected by federal law. It makes no difference to us what candidate a voter selects or what party she supports. But we fight day-in and day-out, in elections big and small, not just in November but throughout the year, to protect her right to have a say. Even with the severe setback of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, we’ve continued to use every tool at our disposal, including the Voting Rights Act, to protect voters from discrimination and provide the opportunities federal law guarantees. And when it comes to protecting the process, we have been winning.

This year, courts around the country issued pivotal rulings to protect the franchise, including in landmark cases brought by the Justice Department and private plaintiffs in North Carolina and Texas. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that “because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” striking down a law that “target[s] African Americans with almost surgical precision.” And after years of litigation prolonged by Shelby County, in July the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a Texas voter ID law for violating the Voting Rights Act. Roughly half a million Texans lacked the form of ID needed to vote. As Sammie Louise Bates – an elderly African American woman living on a fixed income of $321 per month, who lacked the birth certificate she needed to get a Texas ID – testified, “I had to put the $42 [I needed to get the birth certificate] where it was doing the most good … because we couldn’t eat the birth certificate … and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.” From Alabama to Connecticut, we’ve also reached critical settlements to ensure that eligible voters can register with the ease and access that federal law requires.

In the general election last month, the Justice Department sent more than 500 personnel to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states to monitor polling places in the field. Of course, no matter how vigorously and effectively we protect this most fundamental right – through enforcement and monitoring, with government action and support from private plaintiffs – eligible voters need to go out and exercise it. Democracy requires active participation. Self-government, after all, doesn’t happen by chance. But I recognize that people need to believe in the legitimacy of government – in the guarantee that government will treat them fairly, with dignity and decency – in order to participate in the process.

Defending the integrity of our democracy also requires protecting all people – no matter who they are, what they look like, whom they love or where they worship – from harm. Violence against people based on their identity not only violates the law and harms individuals. It also denies entire communities the promises of equal protection and true freedom. Following recent heinous acts of terrorism and divisive rhetoric – we’re combating a backlash of religious discrimination targeting Muslim communities and others perceived to be Muslim. Just two days ago, we convicted a Minneapolis man of a hate crime for writing and mailing a threatening letter to a local Islamic Center, where he threatened to “blow up your building with all you immigrants in it.” Beyond hate crimes, this discriminatory backlash also includes bullying in schools and unlawful barriers to building houses of worship.

For the past eight years, the Civil Rights Division has also worked tirelessly to make the promise of equal protection real for gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. Just last month, we celebrated the seventh anniversary of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This law expanded the federal definition of hate crimes to include protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation. It marked the first time that the words, “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” appeared in the United States Code. It enhanced the legal toolkit available to prosecutors. And it increased the ability of federal law enforcement to support our state and local partners. In the years since, the Civil Rights Division has vigorously enforced this landmark statute. And we continue to work with our partners on the federal, state and local levels to ensure the robust enforcement of hate crime statutes.

Hate violence may mark the most severe form, but discrimination anywhere – and in any form – offends the Constitution and corrodes the ideals of our democracy. In United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Justice Department argued successfully that our Constitution guarantees the equal protection of the law to all people. In citing the Supreme Court’s previous decisions – and in recounting America’s painful history of discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals – we explained that bans on same-sex marriage “exclude a long-mistreated class of human beings from a legal and social status of tremendous import” and are “incompatible with the Constitution.” And then in June 2015, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that here in America, our Constitution guarantees all people “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell stands as a beacon of light – not only for gay and lesbian individuals but for the cause of justice itself.

The cause of justice is never static. It is always searching for the next barrier to dismantle, for the next right to vindicate and for the next freedom to secure. Earlier this year, I joined Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch to announce our lawsuit against North Carolina for violating the civil rights of transgender individuals. Just like Obergefell was about more than just marriage, our challenge to H.B. 2 was about more than just bathrooms. Justice [Anthony] Kennedy wrote in Obergefell that gay men and women have a right to “dignity in their own distinct identity.” And, in 1964, in a case vindicating the Justice Department’s efforts to enforce the Civil Rights Act against the Heart of Atlanta Motel, which refused to let African Americans use its facilities, Justice [Arthur] Goldberg wrote that the “primary purpose” of our nation’s antidiscrimination laws “is the vindication of human dignity.” Laws like H.B. 2 force transgender people to choose between their dignity and basic participation in public life. The humiliation, frustration and embarrassment transgender people feel when they are denied access to a facility others of their gender are free to use – when they receive the message that they are less worthy of equal status and dignity than their peers – is the pain of discrimination and always has been. Fighting discrimination is the mission of the Civil Rights Division, and it always has been.

In all of the areas I spoke about today, we – as a nation and as a people – have far more work to do. Whether it’s in North Carolina or in countless other places across America – from rural towns to large states – this fight is centered around the cause of hope. To me, civil rights work has always been built upon a foundation of hope. It’s the hope that despite the zigs and the zags of our nation’s history, we have been marching forward, imperfectly yet inexorably. The long struggle for equal justice and equal opportunity in this country has always required a deep and abiding reservoir of hope. Hope gives us the struggle and the struggle gives us hope. It’s the hope that this work transforms the nation, fulfills dreams and changes lives.

While we will face new and emerging challenges to equality in the days ahead – just as we always have – civil rights work has always been designed to endure, to build new, infectious momentum in both public and private action. And when I look at the distinguished leaders in this room, I know that with your determination, your creativity and your compassion, together we will continue to advance America’s march for progress and quest for justice. Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Head of the Civil Rights Division Vanita Gupta Delivers Remarks at the Civil Rights Division’s Annual Awards Ceremony

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good afternoon, everyone. I want to start by thanking Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General [Bill] Baer and Deputy Attorney General [Sally Q.] Yates for joining us today and for their wise counsel and outstanding support of the Civil Rights Division. I also want to thank Attorney General [Loretta E.] Lynch – who I know wanted to be here today and sends her regards – for her unwavering support of the division’s work. And I want to thank all of you – the men and women who carry out the division’s work, day-in and day-out, with the utmost integrity. For nearly six decades – during Democratic and Republican administrations, with resilience and resolve, in times of tumult and triumph, against threats of billy clubs and bullets – the Civil Rights Division has advanced America’s highest ideals of freedom, justice and equality for all.

In 1957 – in an era with open wounds of racism and hate, against fierce opposition and after a more than 24-hour filibuster by Senator Strom Thurmond – Congress passed the first piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. Focused almost exclusively on voting rights, the legislation didn’t provide the tools to address widespread discrimination in employment, housing, education and other important areas. But it did create a framework to enforce the protections that Congress would pass, that courts would defend and that America would support in the years to come. That framework was the Civil Rights Division. And over time those protections went into law – protections centered around the most fundamental of human aspirations: the notion that all people deserve to be treated fairly, with dignity and with decency. They were protections designed to advance the cause of justice.

The cause of justice is never static. It is always searching for the next barrier to dismantle, for the next right to vindicate and for the next freedom to secure. That’s what President [Lyndon B.] Johnson meant when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and said, “those who founded our country knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning.” That’s what President [George H.W.] Bush meant when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and declared: “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” And that’s what Justice [Anthony] Kennedy meant when he wrote last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that our Constitution guarantees all people “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

For the past eight years, this Civil Rights Division has answered that same call to make the promise of justice real for every person in every community. During a time when civil rights are at the forefront of our national public discourse, you have made extraordinary contributions. From policing and criminal justice reform, to LGBT rights and voting, you have fought discriminatory barriers and opened doors of opportunity for some of the most vulnerable among us: people with disabilities, people of color, people living in poverty and people who speak English as a second language. Your work has transformed the nation, fulfilled dreams and changed lives. And in doing this work, from Appellate to Policy, you’ve showed an amazing capacity to work across section boundaries.

You helped Hugo Ramirez – who lost his job, and then his savings and his car, because of an error with E-Verify – resolve the issue and find a new job as director of business development for a California health care provider. In his words, you “gave me my livelihood back.”

After Police Officer Lyndi Trischler suffered complications from a high-risk pregnancy and the city of Florence, Kentucky, denied her request for light duty, you brought a case, reached a critical settlement, won her thousands of dollars in relief and changed the policies and training for protecting future female employees of the city.

In a case that captured the attention of people all over the world, you brought a groundbreaking lawsuit against the state of North Carolina over H.B. 2 to vindicate the rights and defend the dignity of transgender individuals.

Your Olmstead enforcement helped Gabrielle – who dreamed of buying a home – find work as a grooming assistant at a dog day care and boutique, earning more than $9 per hour. As she said, “I feel better about my life and … I ended up buying that house.”

A consent decree you reached with Wells Fargo created a program called CityLIFT that changed Monica’s life. After she couldn’t buy a home for her family and lost her deposit, she felt like she “had lost everything.” But once she learned about CityLIFT, which provides down payment assistance grants, she used the program to fulfill her dream and buy a home. As Monica explained, “I needed for my children to know they can do anything, and for my mother to know she’s done well.”

You changed norms in our justice system by advancing language access in state courts around the country. Because of your work, a low-income LEP woman in Michigan no longer needs to struggle through her child custody hearing or use her son as the court interpreter.

You won two landmark voting rights cases in Texas and North Carolina. In Texas, Sammie Louise Bates was one of roughly half a million Texans who lacked the form of ID needed to vote. Bates – an elderly African-American woman living on a fixed income of $321 per month – lacked the $42 for a birth certificate she needed for a Texas ID. As she testified, “I had to put the $42 where it was doing the most good … because we couldn’t eat the birth certificate … and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.” Now, thanks to you, Bates can vote without paying money she doesn’t have for a card she can’t afford.

You supported and implemented an election monitoring program that mobilized the division and department to make sure we didn’t miss a beat – and based on your effort, we sent more than 500 personnel to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states during last month’s general election.

You reached a settlement agreement so that thousands of kindergarteners in Arizona will have the chance to learn English and reach their full potential.

You negotiated a consent decree with Ferguson and released our findings letter on Baltimore – two cases that shaped a national dialogue around the devastating connections among race, poverty and injustice in policing.

Your work brought transformative change to Ohio’s juvenile corrections system. One young person explained the system’s “drastic change” that helped transform her from one of the worst-behaved kids to one of the best. She went on to describe the powerful lesson of self-confidence: “When I get home I know I’m going to be able to use my new thought process because it feels so much better than doing what I used to do, being in trouble.”

From filings on bail reform and the criminalization of homelessness to a letter to state and local judges about the unlawful imposition of fines and fees, you have sought to ensure that no one is punished for their poverty.

You stood up for a black gay man in Corpus Christi, Texas, who was viciously beaten because of his race and sexual orientation. You prosecuted hate crimes targeting Muslim Americans and other vulnerable groups. You convicted a defendant for recruiting foreign students from Kazakhstan by falsely promising clerical jobs at a made-up yoga studio and then forcing them into prostitution. And you vindicated the rights of inmates and civilians abused and assaulted by officers who flouted the law.

You did extensive outreach to combat religious discrimination. And you helped advance diversity in law enforcement by identifying common barriers and promising practices to employment in the profession.

For just a few minutes, I want to talk about what your work has meant to me, and I want to emphasize that for the next several weeks, we still have work to do together. During the past two plus years, you have given me the experience of a lifetime – the privilege to advance the cause of justice, to lift up the amazing work of the outstanding career men and women in the division. It has been the most incredible two years of my life. I cannot thank you enough – for your leadership, for your friendship and for your service to our country. You have transformed the landscape of civil rights work in America irrevocably. And you have done it all with grace and resolve, with compassion and empathy, with unyielding drive and relentless focus.

You have also given me hope. This work is never easy. And I know that we – as a nation and as a people – have far more work to do. Congress didn’t create the Civil Rights Division in 1957 to solve the easy problems. Congress created this division to tackle the toughest issues, to serve as an independent and forceful agency of justice and hope. You cannot be an agent of change without a deep reservoir of hope. It’s the hope that men and women today can build a more just, more inclusive and more free future for the children of tomorrow. It’s the hope that thanks to all of you in the Civil Rights Division, people will reap the benefits of this work for generations to come – in safer streets, in desegregated schools, in fair markets and in stronger communities. It’s the hope that despite the zigs and the zags of our nation’s history, you will continue to ensure that America marches forward, imperfectly yet inexorably. Hope fuels the struggle and the struggle fills us with hope.

While we will always face new and emerging challenges to equality, civil rights work is designed to endure and build momentum. It is ironic but true that we learn the depth of our resiliency when tackling the greatest challenges. The nation needs the Civil Rights Division and all of you to continue to make equal justice and equal opportunity a reality for all who live in the country. Thank you for driving progress in our country. It has been such an incredible privilege to lead this division that I love so very much working alongside such a distinguished and exemplary team of colleagues.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates Delivers Remarks at Civil Rights Division Awards Ceremony

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Thank you, Vanita [Gupta], for that kind introduction – and for your extraordinary leadership of the Civil Rights Division. I so admire your confidence and clear vision for what the Division is and should be, and you’ve made the last two years some of the most impactful in the Division’s long history.

It’s a privilege to stand with you today, and it’s a pleasure to welcome all of you to the Department of Justice – not only today’s honorees, but also the many proud friends, family members and colleagues who have joined us to celebrate this special occasion. You know better than anyone what this job entails – both the passion it inspires and the dedication it demands. Your loved ones have accepted the formidable challenge of defending – and expanding – the civil and constitutional rights of everyone who calls this nation home. Thank you for sharing them with us as they pursue that vital mission and thank you for joining us today to help honor this outstanding group of attorneys, investigators and support staff.

Today’s awardees stood out in a crowded field of accomplishment in the Division this year – a level of accomplishment that is both wildly impressive and precisely what we have come to expect from the Civil Rights Division. I am incredibly proud of what this Division has achieved, not just in 2016, but from the earliest days of the Obama Administration. In fact, since this will be my last opportunity to speak to all of you as a group, if you’ll indulge me for a few minutes, I’d like to take a step back, and take stock of some of the many ways that this Division has used its inimitable strengths and boundless talent to write a new chapter in our nation’s history. This was already a storied Division. But these last eight years have added to that story in once-unimaginable ways.

When former Attorney General [Eric] Holder and former Assistant Attorney General [Tom] Perez arrived in 2009, they came ready to rev up the engine of the Civil Rights Division – and many of you were ready to be empowered, too. It took a serious commitment to restoring this Division’s traditional role as the conscience of the Justice Department. AG Holder liked to refer to the Civil Rights Division as the “crown jewel” of the Department, but you all know that that reputation didn’t come easily. It was hard-earned and painstakingly built by many of the people sitting in this hall today.

In 2009, it was impossible to imagine just how far we’d come, just how far you would take us, in eight short years. For example, at the dawn of this Administration, only two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut – allowed same-sex couples to marry. But in the years that followed, thanks to the courage and struggle of leaders both within and far beyond these walls, we saw that number climb rapidly to 50 – and 50 is where it will stay.

Building on that success, the Civil Rights Division took a groundbreaking stance this year in support of the fundamental equality and dignity of the transgender community. That’s exactly what the Civil Rights Division was created to do. And if you ask me, in the not-too-distant future, the nation will look back on our position and wonder how this issue could ever have been so fiercely contested.

Of course, adversity often comes with the job. On voting rights, we all remember the day in 2013 when the Division and the country suffered a major setback in the protection of the most fundamental of all rights in the Shelby County case. While the Supreme Court eliminated our most powerful tool to combat discrimination in our voting laws, true to the spirit of this Division, you absorbed the blow, sharpened our remaining tools and stood ready the next day to fight even harder to combat voter suppression. And with what feels like new assaults every day to the voting rights that are at the very foundation of our democracy, the potentially disenfranchised need you now more than ever.

In recent years, as the interaction between the police and the communities they serve has revealed a festering distrust that threatens the safety of those communities and our police officers and undermines confidence in law enforcement, the nation has looked to the Civil Rights Division for leadership born of experience, and guidance born of expertise. You have taken up the charge and while there is still much to be done, you have offered a blueprint for moving forward with mutual trust and respect.

And, when it comes to our nation’s criminal justice system, this Division has done vital work to ensure that we treat all our citizens with the fairness and compassion they deserve. Whether it’s scrutinizing bail practices, making our legal views known in local courts, or giving guidance on courthouse fines and fees, you are lighting a path forward for courts and law enforcement bodies nationwide and demonstrating how critical it is that we end the criminalization of poverty once and for all.

In these and so many other ways, this Division has made a powerful difference by fighting for the core rights and freedoms of every individual – no matter where they live, who they are, or how much money they make. These are not just theoretical concepts. In every corner of our country, from schools to mosques, in housing and lending markets, from border areas to boardrooms, you have made real – and lasting – differences in the lives of the people of our country.

Recounting these past victories, I know that many of you are thinking of the future, as well. With change on the horizon, you might be uncertain about whether these accomplishments will last. But I don’t believe that these achievements are as precarious as you might assume. The progress that you have forged is now woven into the fabric of our country. The Supreme Court has held that the right to marry the person you love is protected within the timeless words of our nation’s founding document. The injustices of poverty that you’ve brought to the nation’s attention will not be soon forgotten. Transgender Americans will always remember the recognition and validation they felt when the Department of Justice stood with them. And the citizens of this country will demand that every American’s right to vote is not something merely recited in our Constitution, but rather that this cornerstone of our democracy lives and breathes in every community.

One of the promises we make to young people who come to the Department – whether as interns, paralegals, assistants, or attorneys – is that, if they’re here long enough, they’ll get their chance to touch history. It’s no secret that, in the Civil Rights Division, that chance can come around more often than elsewhere. But what distinguishes all of you is not that you had a chance to touch history – but that, when you did, you grabbed hold of it with confidence and bent it, inexorably, toward justice.

Not long ago, I was drawn to visit the Lincoln Memorial again. I stood on that step where Dr. King stood for the March on Washington and looked out over the reflecting pool. And I thought about all of you. You are civil rights leaders in our day; you are trailblazers. You open minds and change hearts through your unshakable commitment to fairness and justice, to opportunity and equality. That commitment is contagious – and your voice as the protectors of our fundamental rights is every bit as potent now and in the years to come as it has been over the years that have passed.

Come January 20^th, political appointees like Vanita and I will be private citizens. But the fact of the matter is that political appointees are just a tiny fraction of this legendary workforce. It’s you, the career men and women of the Department of Justice, who have always defined this Department – defined who we are and what we stand for. So even though I will no longer be a part of this Department, I, like millions of your fellow citizens, will be counting on you going forward – counting on you to continue to bend the arc toward justice. And I know that responsibility couldn’t be in better hands. I take heart in that. And you should take heart in yourselves.

I know that you have fought hard battles. But progress without resistance is just inevitability – simple and easy. But nothing you have achieved in these eight years was simple or easy. None of it was inevitable. It happened because you made it happen. Because you made it happen.

Thank you once again for allowing me to join you on this important occasion and for allowing me the privilege, for a moment in our nation’s history, of standing shoulder to shoulder with you. It’s an honor to count you as colleagues and friends.

At this time, I’ll turn things over to your truly fearless leader, Vanita Gupta.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks Highlighting Cybercrime Enforcement at Center for Strategic and International Studies

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good morning, and thank you, Jim [Lewis], for that kind introduction. I am pleased to be here speaking to you today, and I want to thank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) for having me.

Over the past two and a half years, I have had the honor of serving as the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division – and with that, the responsibility of ensuring that the division and its over 700 prosecutors have the support and authorities they need to fulfill their responsibilities to the American people. I have also had the opportunity to see first-hand the dedication, rigor, intelligence and respect that America’s prosecutors bring to their work every day. As my time as the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division comes to a close, I am incredibly proud of where the division stands today and all that we have accomplished together.

One constant truth about investigating and prosecuting crime is that it is never without its challenges, although the precise nature of the difficulties and obstacles we face changes with the times. Today, some of the most significant hurdles we encounter relate to technology and the Internet.

Innovation in computing, the Internet, and related services has had tremendous benefits for our economy, our ability to connect with others, and the convenience, efficiency, and security of our everyday lives. It has also transformed how we in law enforcement do our jobs by expanding our ability to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal activity.

However, these same innovations permit criminals to more easily victimize Americans, including from afar, while concealing their identities and enabling destruction of evidence. We face an enormous task in responding to these new threats – ranging from botnets and ransomware to online child sexual exploitation and firearms trafficking, to name just a few – and that task is not getting any easier. This morning I will focus on four challenges that have been and must continue to be the center of our work if we intend to succeed:
•   First, the growth of sophisticated, global cyber threats;
•   Second, dangerous loopholes in our legal authorities;
•   Third, the widespread use of warrant-proof encryption; and,
•   Fourth, inefficient cross-border access to electronic evidence.

As I will explain in more detail, the past few years have marked some significant progress in some of these areas. We have grown more nimble and effective in cooperative international law enforcement efforts to bring cyber criminals to justice and remediate cybercrime. And we have managed to effect some targeted and common-sense improvements in legal authorities. But in other areas, the challenges remain, and in some cases have become more prominent. Let me begin with the threat. The global nature of the Internet means that criminals now can easily victimize more people within the United States in more dangerous ways, all without ever setting foot here. Some of the most significant criminal activity in recent years is the result of sophisticated criminal groups reaching across our borders from perceived safe harbors. As we rely more and more on network communications to handle virtually every aspect of our lives, the cost of cybercrime will only rise – to over two trillion globally by 2019, according to some estimates – and the United States is a uniquely attractive target.

We have responded first and foremost by aggressively identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting offenders. This past October, for example, the Russian cybercriminal Roman Seleznev was convicted by a jury in Seattle. Seleznev was a hacker who, from the other side of the world, pilfered data for millions of payment cards from the computer systems of small business owners across America – a crime that strikes at the trust and security of our everyday financial transactions. Seleznev was the son of a member of the Russian parliament, and the Russian government filed diplomatic protests and tried to pressure us into releasing him. But that’s not how justice in America works, and he is now in an American prison.

We recognize that we cannot prosecute our way out of cybercrime, but prosecution must remain an integral component of our response to global cyber threats. That is why foreign hackers like “Guccifer” – who hacked into the email and social media accounts of about a hundred Americans, including two former U.S. presidents – as well as Vladimir Drinkman and Dmitriy Smilianets – who, along with co-conspirators, conducted a worldwide hacking scheme that compromised more than 160 million credit card numbers – have likewise found themselves within the reach of American law enforcement. Thanks to the work of our colleagues in the National Security Division, the same holds true for individuals like Su Bin – who conspired with Chinese military hackers to steal cutting-edge U.S. aircraft designs – and Ardit Ferizi – who shared stolen PII belonging to 1,300 U.S. military and government personnel with a member of ISIL, for publication on a hit list. All have now been brought to the United States to face justice.

The department’s strong track record in this area is a critical deterrent to would-be attackers. Over the last twenty years, for example, our Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) – the centerpiece of our prosecutorial response to criminal cyber threats – has successfully prosecuted cases involving more than one billion stolen pieces of information, including payment card data, email addresses and social security numbers – more than three pieces of data for every American alive today.

Our international partnerships make this work possible. And they have been key in another way as well. Even when prosecution is not yet an option – for example, because we have been unable to identify or apprehend a criminal target – we have developed operational expertise in disrupting cybercriminal infrastructure in the United States and abroad. For example, we have worked hand-in-hand with our foreign partners to address technical threats like botnets, so-called “bulletproof” hosts, Darknet markets and international hacking forums.

Indeed, just last week, the department led a multinational operation to dismantle a vast network of dedicated criminal servers known as “Avalanche,” which allegedly hosted more than two dozen of the world’s most dangerous and persistent malware campaigns. The Avalanche network served clients operating as many as 500,000 infected computers on a daily basis and is associated with monetary losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide. We were joined in this effort by investigators and prosecutors from more than 40 jurisdictions across the globe. We must maintain existing international law enforcement cooperation – and develop new mechanisms to work with foreign partners – if we hope to continue these successes.

These efforts have also benefitted from growth in our technical and investigative capacity. The Criminal Division has steadily increased resources for CCIPS, along with its in-house Cybercrime Lab, over the last two years. The Cybercrime Lab has become the go-to resource across U.S. law enforcement for intractable problems in accessing and understanding digital evidence, whether that means uncovering evidence that a defendant accessed online terrorist radicalization materials to rebut a claim of entrapment, or cracking passwords to dozens of devices that hold key evidence of serious crimes.

We have also found that augmenting our own expertise and legal authorities with insight from private sector institutions allows us to identify and develop new, creative responses. For example, in 2014, the FBI, in conjunction with a coalition of nearly a dozen foreign countries and a group of elite computer security firms, dismantled the Gameover Zeus botnet. That botnet, which infected more than one million computers around the world, inflicted over $100 million in losses on American victims alone, and was responsible for the spread of the Cryptolocker ransomware. The Gameover Zeus operation represents what we can achieve when law enforcement agencies collaborate with private sector experts, and indeed, many private organizations provided similar assistance in the recent Avalanche take-down. I hope that it will continue to serve as a model for the department’s future work.

This relationship works in both directions. The investigative experience of our CCIPS prosecutors can offer important lessons for private sector entities. In addition, navigating the federal laws that govern network monitoring practices – laws in which CCIPS specializes – can be fraught for organizations seeking to improve their cybersecurity. That is why, two years ago, we created the Cybersecurity Unit, a group of CCIPS prosecutors who can leverage their case-related experience to develop and share practical cybersecurity advice with the private sector. The Unit has also played an integral role in implementation of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA). So not only have we benefitted from private sector experts for our operational needs, but we have made a practice of sharing our knowledge base as well.

Even as the department addresses technical obstacles to preventing and prosecuting cybercrime, however, we confront a second challenge: arbitrary gaps in the law that frustrate some of our most pressing investigations. One example of such a loophole was the venue provision of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

As that Rule existed prior to Dec. 1, 2016, when law enforcement sought court approval for a search warrant, it generally was required to seek authorization from a court sitting in the same geographic district where the property to be searched was located. This Rule made perfect sense in dealing with the physical world. But in the cyber-world, we increasingly face scenarios where criminals use technology to hide the location of their computers, meaning that we could not know where the computers were located. In those circumstances, federal law did not clearly identify which judge could authorize a search.

Similarly, we regularly encounter crimes like mass hacking through botnets that are carried out in multiple districts at once, all across the country. But in order to respond in a timely, comprehensive manner, the prior version of the Rule arguably required authorities to obtain a warrant in each district – up to 94 in all, across 9 time zones, ranging from the Virgin Islands to Guam.

Last week, a three year effort, spearheaded by the Criminal Division, and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, culminated in a targeted, procedural fix to the venue provisions of the Rule to ensure that technology does not render our investigative abilities obsolete. The update to the Rule does not alter the probable cause or other standards we must meet to obtain a search warrant. What the Rule does change is that now, when criminals hide the location of their computers through anonymizing technology, we don’t have to figure out in which federal district the computers are physically located before we can act to stop criminal activity. Likewise, when a criminal deploys a botnet that indiscriminately infects computers nationwide – as many botnets now do – we don’t have to go to as many as 94 different judges.

The need to update Rule 41 was not theoretical. Today, dozens of websites on Tor – a proxy network – openly distribute images of child rape and sexual exploitation, where they are frequented by tens of thousands of pedophiles. These sites can thrive in the open because proxy networks, like Tor, hide the locations of the criminals’ servers and the identities of their administrators and users. While law enforcement – and the general public – can easily find images of child sexual exploitation by visiting one of these sites, we often cannot locate and shut down the websites or identify and apprehend the abusers. More troubling, the child victims stand little chance of rescue.

The recent investigation of “Playpen,” a Tor site used by more than 100,000 pedophiles to encourage child sexual abuse and trade sexually explicit images of that abuse, illustrates why a Rule 41 fix was necessary. In that case, authorities were able to wrest control of the site from the administrators, and then obtained court approval to use a remote search tool to retrieve limited information, including the user’s IP address, only if a user accessed child pornography on the site. This enabled a traditional, real-world investigation, leading to more than 200 active prosecutions and the identification or rescue of at least 49 American children who were subject to sexual abuse.

Yet in some of the resulting cases, federal courts relying on the language of the prior version of Rule 41 found that even though the probable cause and other standards for obtaining a warrant were satisfied, evidence obtained in searches nevertheless had to be excluded because the judges who issued warrants lacked venue over the computers, which turned out to be physically located outside their geographic districts. This is a perverse result, as it would mean that criminals who are savvy enough to hide their locations – which is not difficult given current technologies – could place themselves beyond the reach of law enforcement.

This is a good example of why the amendments to Rule 41 are such a crucial step forward. They make clear which courts are available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment, without altering in any way the substantive requirements for – or privacy protections provided by – a warrant. This will ensure that criminals who use anonymizing technologies are not immune from justice, and that threats like botnets are not too big to investigate and remediate effectively.

This fix is a not a cure-all, however. Our response to cyber threats requires revisiting laws that simply did not anticipate and cannot adjust to modern technology. We must continue to move forward – not backward – to ensure that our laws protect Americans from criminals, and not the other way around.

I now want to turn to some challenges that, despite the best efforts of many, will continue to confront policymakers in the years to come. As society’s use of computers and the Internet has grown, so too has the importance of digital evidence in criminal investigations. In nearly every criminal investigation we undertake at the federal level – from homicides and kidnappings to drug trafficking, organized crime, financial fraud and child exploitation – critical information comes from smart phones, computers and online communications, often instead of physical evidence. Yet, these materials are increasingly unavailable to law enforcement as a result of certain implementations of encryption, even when we have a warrant to examine them.

This is because, in an attempt to market products and services as protective of personal privacy and data security, companies increasingly are offering products with built-in encryption technologies that preclude access to data even when a court has issued a search warrant. Service providers with more than a billion user accounts, that transmit tens of billions of messages per day around the world, now advertise themselves as unable to comply with warrants. And device manufacturers that have placed hundreds of millions of products in the market have embraced the same principle. We in law enforcement often describe this sort of encryption as “warrant-proof encryption.”

Let me be clear: the Criminal Division is on the front lines of the fight against cybercrime. We recognize that the development and adoption of strong encryption is essential to counteracting cyber threats and to promote our overall safety and privacy. But certain implementations of encryption pose an undeniable and growing threat to our ability to protect the American people. Our inability to access such data can stop our investigations and prosecutions in their tracks.

Inaction is not a suitable response. Our occasional success in accessing information protected by seemingly “warrant-proof encryption” is unpredictable and inadequate. There are devices in evidence lockers across the country that remain locked.

As the President reminded us recently, the Government has different responsibilities – a different “balance sheet” and different “stakeholders” – than a corporation. There is nothing wrong with companies pursuing profits and marketing strategies, but no one should expect that they will take into account all of the societal interests that are at stake. And that is especially true for our public safety mission. Our ability to protect Americans from crime has become dependent, in thousands of cases, on the business decisions of for-profit corporations. More troublingly, even when companies have the technical ability to reasonably assist us in accessing encrypted information, they have refused to do so for fear of “tarnishing” their image. Regardless of which side of this issue you are on, we can all agree that market-driven decisions are not and have never been a substitute for sound public safety policies.

Business decisions made by for-profit companies have had enormous effects on our public safety in other ways as well. Data held by major Internet service providers can be crucial to identifying and holding accountable the perpetrators of virtually every federal crime we handle. Increasingly, however, American providers and other providers subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are storing such information outside the United States, and not always at rest and in the same location. The data can be partitioned and stored in multiple locations, or moved about on an ongoing basis, and some providers may not even know where all data relating to a particular user is at a given time.

It is this last challenge – foreign-stored digital evidence – that I will close with today. The department has worked diligently to increase the cross-border availability of data, through mechanisms like the 24/7 Network, which facilitates the preservation of digital evidence, as well as mutual legal assistance treaties and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which enhance international cooperation in obtaining that evidence. The Criminal Division has also directed additional resources toward a dedicated cyber mutual legal assistance unit in our Office of International Affairs, which has seen a 1,000 percent increase in incoming requests for computer records since 2000.

But while these are important crime-fighting tools, they have significant shortcomings. The United States has mutual legal assistance treaties with less than half the countries in the world, some of which place limitations on when assistance is available or the types of evidence that can be obtained. Even then, obtaining evidence can take months, if not years. Ireland, for example, reports that in routine cases it takes 15 to 18 months to execute a request for assistance from a foreign country. In less experienced or less cooperative countries, the process can take even longer. Sometimes we never receive a response at all.

Recently, the difficulties caused by foreign-stored data for public safety have become more acute. In July, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in the so-called “Microsoft Ireland” case, held that U.S. authorities cannot use a search warrant issued by a U.S. court pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to compel a U.S. service provider, such as Microsoft, to produce data that it chooses to store for its own business purposes (and typically without the knowledge or input of its subscribers) outside the United States.

So, what is already a difficult and time-consuming process of gathering electronic evidence may now also become an impossible one, for both the United States and our partners. Since the Microsoft decision was handed down, U.S. providers such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have refused to produce information that they have chosen to store abroad in response to search warrants issued by courts even outside the Second Circuit. This has been the case even in instances where the account-holder was an American citizen residing in the United States, and when the crime under investigation is carried out on American soil. And this includes warrants obtained on behalf of foreign countries pursuant to mutual legal assistant requests.

U.S. law generally does not require our providers to store this data in a particular location or make it accessible in any particular way. But as a result, the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate serious crime may now be determined entirely by a provider’s data management practices, well-intentioned or not. One major American provider, for example, is unable to determine the country in which foreign-stored data is located; and even if it could, the data is frequently moved and may not be in the same country from day to day. Under the Second Circuit’s decision, a SCA warrant is not available. But sending an MLAT request to a foreign country could result – after months of delay – in a notification that the relevant data is no longer there.

It is for this reason that, in October, the department filed a petition for the case to be reheard by the entire Second Circuit en banc. It is also why we intend to submit legislation to Congress to address the decision’s significant public safety implications. This issue must be resolved before we move to other important initiatives, such as legislation to implement a cross-border data agreement with the United Kingdom.

Looking forward, I cannot predict how the rehearing petition, or the broader concerns implicated by the Microsoft decision, will play out. And I suspect that, whether the issue relates to warrant-proof encryption or cross-border access to evidence, reaching a resolution will be challenging. But these decisions must be made in the policy arena, not by the private sector alone. We cannot allow changing technologies or the economic interests of the private sector to overwhelm larger policy issues relating to the needs of public safety and national security. And we must let government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities to protect the American people.

I know that the panel to follow will focus on some of these challenges for the future, but let me offer my own thoughts here. In each of these areas, we must proceed thoughtfully and balance multiple different legitimate interests. Yet several basic principles should be obvious. First, sitting back and doing nothing is not an acceptable option. The world is changing around us, and those seeking to do harm are evolving with it; if those responsible for ensuring public safety do not have the same ability to adapt, public safety will suffer. Second, these changes pose policy challenges, and we need to develop policy responses. Rather than let evolutions in technology dictate our responses, we must think ahead as a society and develop appropriate frameworks to address new and upcoming challenges before they become crises. And finally, when there are multiple interests at stake – public safety, cybersecurity, international comity and civil rights and civil liberties – we cannot allow the most consequential decisions to be made by a single stakeholder, or leave them to the whim of the commercial marketplace. We would never tolerate that approach in other areas of importance to society, and we should not do so here. Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Memorial Service for Former Attorney General Janet Reno

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Good morning, everyone. To President [Bill] Clinton; Sandy D’Alemberte; distinguished guests; and most importantly Maggy [Reno Hurchalla], Hunter [Reno] and all of Ms. Reno’s family: I bring you greetings and remembrances from her Department of Justice family.

Early in her career, someone famously told Janet Reno that “ladies don’t become lawyers.” This being free advice, she took it for exactly what it was worth. And I am so grateful – as is our nation – that she did. Further, it is absolutely fitting that history books will pay no notice to whoever uttered that pithy absurdity, but they will certainly pay tribute to Janet Reno. In so many ways – as the first woman to serve as Attorney General in American history; as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer in a tumultuous and eventful time; and as a straight-talking, no-nonsense public servant of the highest integrity – Ms. Reno was a historic figure. She broke barriers and defied expectations. The Department of Justice she left was one that was stronger, wiser, and more compassionate than the one she had inherited.

Janet Reno was undoubtedly aware of her historic role. But she never let her place in history – or anyone for that matter – define her. The weight of her responsibilities never got in the way of her fundamental kindness, a fact that so many department employees still recall. And in a life filled with achievement, one of her proudest was that she cared for her mother as she was dying of cancer, and ensured that her final days were spent in comfort, peace and love. Because she always knew that what really mattered in this life were the connections we have with one another. That acknowledgement of those connections – the blessed ties that bind all of us, as caretaker of our loved ones, as stewards of this land and of the law, as Americans – was at the core of her strength.

When I was thinking of my remarks for today – in the five-minute time frame Maggy so generously gave me – I thought about focusing on the meetings I had with Ms. Reno around her conference room table, now mine. I thought about focusing on the many consequential matters I saw her consider with wisdom and grace. But what kept coming to my mind and to my heart were the first time I met her and the last time I saw her.

When Janet Reno became Attorney General, I was a young federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. A few years into a job that I loved, I must confess that to me and so many of my colleagues, especially the women, Main Justice was a somewhat mysterious place down I-95 populated mostly by dark-suited men whose main distinguishing characteristic seemed to be whether they were grey or whether they were balding. When Janet Reno came onto the scene – a woman, a Southerner, an original who famously “didn’t do spin” – we were electrified. I was inspired by her. I wanted to be like her. Despite my best efforts, I was not able to achieve 6’2”. I had to settle for being Attorney General instead. It has not been a bad trade.

I first met Janet Reno at the National Black Prosecutors Conference, being held in Washington in her first year in office. She spoke to us about the importance of having prosecutors who based their decisions on what was best for the country, not what was best for their careers. She told us never to forget the many experiences and backgrounds that had brought us there, because that would be our strength as prosecutors. After her talk, she was swarmed with well-wishers. We wanted to shake her hand, to take a photo, to just be near her. And she stayed and spoke with every person who wanted her attention. She posed for pictures, and she asked each of us, thoughtfully and seriously, about ourselves. Maya Angelou once said that “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” Even today, no one in that room has forgotten how Ms. Reno made us feel – she made us feel valued, she made us feel heard, she made us feel that we could do anything.

That was one of her great gifts. She was one of the best listeners you’ll ever meet. The last time I saw her was earlier this year, in the house her mother had built. She was dealing with difficult health challenges, but she didn’t want to discuss her own health or make idle chitchat. She wanted to hear about the Department of Justice. She wanted to hear about our work in civil rights and in community policing. She wanted to hear about the tough decisions before our department – the kind of tough decisions she had faced every day. And as I spoke, she listened – with that same patient, intent gaze I remembered from so many years ago. And because it was a good day for her, we were able to speak together as well. And as she had so many years ago, she made me feel that I could do anything.

I know that all of us here today have similar stories of how she inspired us in ways large and small. We’re here to honor and remember her. And both the lesson and the challenge she has left for all of us is to decide – how will our actions make others feel? So, as we leave here today with our hearts still full, let us do so with a mission. A mission to carry Janet Reno’s legacy with us, and make the people in our lives feel valued, feel heard, and feel that they, too, can do anything.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Interfaith Event on the Justice Department’s Commitment to Combatting Hate Crimes

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Thank you, Imam [Mohamed] Magid, for your kind words; for your hospitality in welcoming me today; and for your outstanding leadership of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, especially during what I know has been a difficult time for many Muslim Americans. I am proud to stand beside you today. I also want to thank all of the inspiring faith leaders that we just heard from for their moving words. And I want to thank all of you – faith leaders and community leaders; activists and advocates – for all that you do, each and every day, to strengthen, empower and unite our communities.

It is truly inspiring to stand in this space, in front of this audience. This morning, we have gathered under this roof, in this mosque, as men and women of all races, creeds and colors. Some of us were born in the United States, our immigration status having been resolved several generations ago; some of us came here more recently in search of a better life. We may speak different languages; we may read from different books of scripture; we may call our God by different names. But we all love this country and the ideals for which it stands. We all want our children to lead lives of safety and opportunity. We all proudly claim the title of American. And we all hold, as Justice Brandeis proclaimed, “the most important political office … that of the private citizen.” In this assembly, I see a living expression of the American promise: the conviction that every person’s dignity is inherent and equal.

That promise is as old as our nation itself. Twelve score years ago, our forefathers boldly proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” But of course, when those words were written, a large gap existed between America’s founding ideals and America’s founding reality. The very hand that put those words on parchment had also signed the deeds for the sale and purchase of other human beings. For many of our ancestors – for women, African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants and countless others – the promise of American life rang hollow.

But the declaration’s revolutionary statement of equality was too plain and powerful – too “self-evident”, in Jefferson’s words – for that state of affairs to endure. Generation after generation of Americans heard the promise set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and they demanded that it be fulfilled: women who endured ridicule and condescension for seeking the ballot; black soldiers who defended freedom overseas, only to return home to a nation that wouldn’t let them vote, and that sometimes repaid their service with angry violence; marchers who braved the jaws of police dogs at Birmingham, and the sting of cattle prods at Selma; LGBTQ individuals who fought for their civil rights at the Stonewall Inn – through the courage and determination of these and countless others who have gone before us, we have slowly built a society that more fully reflects our founding creed of liberty and justice for all.

That does not mean our work is finished; as you are all well aware, the opposite is true. We all know this work is never finished. Just last month, the FBI released its statistics on the number of hate crimes committed in 2015. The report was a sobering indication of how much work remains to be done. Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased six percent from 2014. That figure includes increases in hate crimes committed against Jewish Americans, African Americans, and LGBTQ Americans. And, perhaps most troublingly of all, it showed a 67 percent increase in hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans, and the highest total of anti-Muslim incidents since 2001, when 9/11 spurred so many reprehensible acts. And we know that there are many more hate crimes in communities across the country that go unreported.

In addition, all of us have seen the flurry of recent news reports about alleged hate crimes and harassment – from hijabs yanked off of women’s heads; to swastikas sprayed on the sides of synagogues; to slurs and epithets hurled in classrooms. The FBI is working with local authorities to review multiple incidents, and our agents and prosecutors are working to assess whether particular cases constitute violations of federal law.

These incidents – and these statistics – should be of the deepest concern to every American. Because hate crimes don’t just target individuals. They tear at the fabric of our communities, and they also stain our dearest ideals and our nation’s very soul. There is a pernicious thread that connects the act of violence against a woman wearing a hijab to the assault on a transgender man to the tragic deaths of nine innocent African Americans during a Bible study at Mother Emanuel AME in Charleston, South Carolina. As President Obama has said, it is “the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity – the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same hopes and fears, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.” The reason we have a cross-section of so many leaders from different faiths here today is because we believe so deeply in certain common values. Regardless of our faith, we believe that we must treat others as we would wish to be treated. Regardless of our faith, we believe that every individual is precious. Regardless of our faith, we believe in our common humanity, and we believe that, in the famous words of Martin Luther King Jr., “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That is why the Department of Justice – and the entire Obama Administration – regards hate crimes with the utmost seriousness, whether they target individuals because of their race, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation. And that is why we have worked tirelessly over the last several years to bring those who perpetrate these heinous deeds to justice.

A cornerstone of that work is investigating and prosecuting hate crimes against Muslim Americans, as well as those perceived to be Muslim. Muslim Americans are our friends and family members, our doctors and nurses, our police officers and firefighters. They own businesses and teach in classrooms. Thousands of them have fought for the American flag. Many have died defending it. And yet, too often – especially in the last year, following a number of tragic terrorist incidents, and amidst an increase in divisive and fearful rhetoric – we have seen Muslim Americans targeted and demonized simply because of their faith. And to impose a blanket stereotype on all members of any faith because of the actions of those who pervert that faith is to go backwards in our thinking and our discourse, and to repudiate the founding ideals of this country. This is unacceptable in a nation whose Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of religion in its very first clause, and the Department of Justice has vigorously prosecuted a number of these repugnant acts.

In recent months, our Civil Rights Division – led by Vanita Gupta, who is here with us today – along with our U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, have convicted a Connecticut man for firing a high-powered rifle at a mosque; a Florida man for threatening to firebomb two mosques and shoot their congregants; a Missouri man for the arson of a local mosque; and a North Carolina man who yelled at a woman and ripped off her hijab on an airplane. And in October, our National Security Division and the U.S Attorney’s Office in Kansas charged three men in connection with their plot to detonate bombs at an apartment complex in Garden City, Kansas, which included a mosque where many members of the local Somali immigrant community gather to pray. These are only a few examples of the Justice Department’s recent prosecutions. There are many more matters that we, often in close partnership with our state and local law enforcement partners, are investigating.

The Justice Department is also working to protect the rights of religious communities to build houses of worship without unlawful interference or harassment. Unfortunately, that task has only become more urgent in recent years. Members of the Civil Rights Division have heard repeatedly about more overt discrimination in both the tone and framing of objections to planned religious institutions, especially mosques and Islamic centers. Our primary tool to combat such discrimination is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. Since September 2010, the department has opened 50 RLUIPA land-use investigations, filed ten lawsuits involving land use, and filed eight amicus briefs in private parties’ RLUIPA cases to inform courts about the law’s provisions and requirements. In the last six years, 38 percent of the Civil Rights Division’s RLUIPA land use cases involved mosques or Islamic schools – a dramatic increase over the percentage of such cases brought during the previous decade.

Religious institutions aren’t the only vulnerable spaces we are determined to keep free of hatred and bias. We all know that in order for our children to learn and thrive, they need access to safe and inclusive classrooms. Earlier this year, the Civil Rights Division launched a new initiative with our U.S. Attorneys’ Offices that will significantly advance our ability to address religious discrimination in schools. And our Community Relations Service, or CRS – led by Paul Monteiro, who is also here with us today – works to ease tensions and promote understanding in communities and schools that have been rocked by traumatic incidents. For example, after a student was allegedly forced to remove her hijab in a school in Massachusetts, the school invited CRS to present its Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Cultural Awareness Program to the school’s staff. CRS also recently appointed its first ever National Program Manager for Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian Communities, and I am so pleased that Harpreet Singh Mokha has joined us here today.

We are also concerned with crimes against our LGBT brothers and sisters. In October, we commemorated the seventh anniversary of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the federal definition of hate crimes to included crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Here, too, we have been active, bringing hate crimes cases in a number of states around the country. Tomorrow, I am traveling to New York to meet with LGBT youth, and to reaffirm the department’s steadfast commitment to the rights and well-being of all LGBTQ Americans.

These are all important efforts, and their impact has been amplified by our efforts to train local and federal law enforcement agencies in how to recognize and investigate hate crimes; how to engage with communities; and how to encourage better hate crime reporting and data collection. These initiatives have helped us to build stronger partnerships between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve, and I am hopeful that those partnerships will stand as a bulwark against hate crimes for years to come.

I am encouraged by what we have accomplished together over the last eight years. But I also know that we face many challenges in the years ahead – challenges that will require the Department of Justice to remain an active force for good in communities from coast to coast. Our federal hate crimes laws are among the most powerful tools we have for creating a more just and equal nation, and career Justice Department prosecutors will continue to enforce them.

Nevertheless, I know that many Americans are feeling uncertainty and anxiety as we witness the recent eruption of divisive rhetoric and hateful deeds. I know that many Americans are wondering if they are in danger simply because of what they look like or where they pray. I know that some are wondering whether the progress we have made at such great cost, and over so many years, is in danger of sliding backwards.

I understand those feelings. I know that as we continue to demand a nation where all people are truly treated equally, we will be met with prejudice, bigotry and condemnation.

It is true that there is nothing foreordained about our march towards a more just and peaceful future. There never has been. Our centuries-long project of creating a more perfect union was not the product of fate, or destiny. It was the result of countless individuals making the choice to stand up, to demand recognition, to refuse to rest until they knew that their children were inheriting a nation that was more tolerant, more inclusive and more equal. That is why it is so fitting that we are here today in this beautiful house of worship, this place of deep and abiding faith. It has been faith that has sustained this fight since the beginning.

Faith – a small band of colonies could separate from the most powerful nation on earth and chart a course of freedom and equality.

Faith – a new nation and its ideas could survive a bloody and divisive civil war that arose from its original sin of slavery. And not just faith – the works that made it so when there was no guarantee of success.

I have been fortunate to have such people in my life. Two of them happen to be faith leaders: my grandfather and my father. They both lived at a time when their country regarded them as less than fully human, simply because of the color of their skin. And they both did their part to make the United States just a little more free and a little more fair. In 1930s North Carolina – where the law offered little protection to people of color – my grandfather used to hide neighbors in trouble under the floorboards of his house. My own father let civil rights activists meet in the basement of his church in Greensboro, North Carolina.

These were acts of enormous courage. But they were also acts of enormous faith and hope. Here were two men living in a country that put obstacles in their path to prevent them from voting; that told them they could only use certain drinking fountains; that told them that when the Declaration of Independence said, “All men are created equal,” it wasn’t referring to them. But they knew what those words meant, and they chose to act accordingly. They knew their portion of fear. They knew their portion of anger. And yet they never lost their hope that although their country was far from perfect, it was certainly capable of perfection. They both risked a great deal for that faith – never knowing if would work out or not – never imagining that the daughter of one and the granddaughter of the other would one day become the chief law enforcement officer of the united states.

My friends, that hope is still alive in our country. You and I know what the declaration means when it says, “All men are created equal.” You and I know what the Constitution means when it says, “We, the people.” So let us leave here united in our confidence, inspired by our faith and strengthened by our courage. Let us leave here with a renewed commitment to demanding nothing less than a country that is true to its founding promises. And let us leave here in hope – the hope that has brought the United States so far in the last 240 years; the hope that I am confident will carry us even further in the days to come.

Will this work be hard? It has always been hard.

Will there be challenges ahead? We have always known that “the price of freedom is constant vigilance.”

Will we persevere? We always do.

Let me recall a song from my faith, made famous by Mahalia Jackson: “Lord, don’t move the mountain, but give me the strength to climb.”

I want to thank you for allowing me to spend a few moments with you today to talk about the country we all love, and the future we all cherish. Thank you for all that you do in your congregations and your communities to vindicate the promise of American life. And let me assure you that long after I leave the Attorney General’s seat, I will continue to stand beside you in the cause of liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: New Carrollton Man Sentenced to 20 Years in Federal Prison for Kidnapping Minors, Producing Child Sexual Abuse Material

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime News

Greenbelt, Maryland – On January 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman sentenced Julian Everett, 41, of New Carrollton, Maryland, to 20 years in federal prison and 20 years of supervised release, for kidnapping minors and producing child sexual abuse material.

Erek L. Barron, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the sentence with Special Agent in Charge William J. DelBagno, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha N. Braveboy; and Chief Malik Aziz, Prince George’s County Police Department.

According to the guilty plea, in 2005, 2015 and 2016, Everett acknowledged sexually abusing and capturing sexual abuse material of several victims at his New Carrollton home – four were minors.

On July 11, 2005, Everett drove Victim 2 — who was16 at the time — from the Commonwealth of Virginia to his New Carrollton residence. While at his residence, Everett provided Victim 2 with a beverage, before engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent. Everett also took nude photographs of the victim without her consent.

Additionally, on August 23, 2015, Everett drove another victim — who was 18 at the time — from a Washington, D.C. night club to a gas station. While there, Everett created and provided Victim 3 with a beverage before driving her to his New Carrollton residence. Everett then engaged in sexual acts with Victim 3 without her consent.

Then on August 21, 2016, Everett drove Victim 1 — who was then 17 at the time — from her Washington, D.C. residence to a Northwest D.C. barbershop where he worked. While at the barbershop, Everett created and provided Victim 1 with a beverage. Victim 1 drank it and eventually lost consciousness before waking up at Everett’s home while he was performing a sexual act on her. Additionally, Everett recorded the sexual encounter and took naked pictures of the victim without her consent.

Authorities arrested Everett in Prince George’s County on March 21, 2019. Federal law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Everett’s electronic devices, revealing images of child sexual abuse material, including a video of Everett engaging in sexual intercourse with an unidentified fifth female victim. During the video, Victim 5 can be heard mumbling and is physically unresponsive with her eyes closed.

On March 26, 2019, a fourth victim reported a sexual-assault incident to the Prince George’s County Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Division. Between March and April 2015, Everett transported Victim 4 — who was16 at the time — from her Washington D.C. residence to his New Carrollton home. After arriving at his house, Everett mixed a drink for Victim 4 who drank it and became lightheaded. Everett then engaged in multiple sexual acts with Victim 4 without her consent, which he also digitally recorded. He also took nude photos of her.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc. For more information about Internet safety education, please visit www.justice.gov/psc and click on the “Resources” tab on the left of the page.

U.S. Attorney Barron commended the FBI, Office of State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County, Maryland, and the Prince George’s County Police Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Barron also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Hagan and Thomas Sullivan who prosecuted the federal case.

For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, please visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

# # #

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks Before the National Asian American Coalition and National Diversity Coalition

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Thank you Faith for those kind words and for your outstanding leadership of the National Asian American Coalition (NAAC). The NAAC and its partners in the National Diversity Coalition have become important voices and strong advocates for communities – in particular, minority and poor communities – that far too often go unheard in our society. Day in and day out, you provide hope and a helping hand to many hardworking Americans struggling to attain the American dream. In my three years in this job, one highlight is meeting regularly with your coalition. You are always informed and effective advocates on behalf of your communities.

But I appreciate that advocating on behalf of consumers when you visit D.C. is only a small part of what the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do. You provide training to the laid-off father searching for a job that will put food on the table and a roof over his family’s head. You provide financial advice and resources to the mother hoping to start her own business. You help families purchase their first home or refinance their mortgage so they can hold onto the home they purchased with their life savings. You inspire countless young people to dream big and to strive for excellence by providing them with mentoring, after-school programs and scholarships. I spoke with some of these students this morning. I believe, as President Obama has noted, that “[t]here is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child’s God-given potential.”

The mission of the Antitrust Division also involves ensuring economic opportunity for all consumers. Our antitrust laws seek to promote fairness in our marketplaces, safeguard the economic freedom of our citizens and strengthen our economy through vigorous competition. Our first antitrust law – the Sherman Act – was passed 125 years ago. That law seeks to protect American consumers and businesses from the harm to competition that results when too much economic power is held by only a few corporations and individuals. The Sherman Act became a vital tool under President Theodore Roosevelt – a progressive reformer often referred to as the “trust buster” – as he spearheaded the movement to bring fairness to the marketplace and to ensure that consumers benefit from healthy competition for their hard earned dollars. Some years later, his distant cousin – President Franklin D. Roosevelt – established the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department to help continue the fight to protect hardworking Americans from the higher prices and reduced innovation that can result from the consolidation of economic power in a few hands.

Here are a couple of examples of the Antitrust Division’s work. Earlier this year, I stood with Attorney General Loretta Lynch when she announced the criminal guilty pleas of five of the world’s largest and most influential financial institutions – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, UBS and The Royal Bank of Scotland – for manipulating the massive foreign currency exchange market. As part of their guilty pleas, these institutions were required to pay almost $3 billion in criminal fines, including the largest antitrust fines ever obtained in the Justice Department’s 145-year history.

A few years ago, we uncovered international conspiracies to fix the prices for all kinds of automobile parts, including seatbelts, airbags and antilock brake systems. This illegal conduct made it more costly for companies like General Motors, Ford and Toyota to manufacture cars. At the end of the day, we all know who paid the price for these cartels – the American consumer. As of today, we have charged 58 corporate executives and 37 companies and obtained more than $2.6 billion in criminal fines. And we are not done yet.

Sometimes antitrust crimes are local. Here in Northern California, our San Francisco office has spent the last several years prosecuting individuals who rigged the bids on foreclosed homes being sold at public auctions. As you know, many Californians lost their homes during the Great Recession because they could not afford to pay their mortgages. Some real estate investors saw the misfortune of these homeowners as an opportunity to line their pockets by agreeing not to bid against each other when these homes were auctioned. They took turns winning these auctions at suppressed prices and deprived the banks and homeowners of the benefits of a competitive auction. Thus far, we have charged more than 110 individuals who engaged in this type of bid rigging here in Northern California and other parts of the country. Our San Francisco office also successfully prosecuted a conspiracy to fix the prices of liquid display panels sold worldwide. LCDs are used in all kinds of electronic products, including flat screen televisions, computer monitors and tablets. This conspiracy made it more expensive for companies to manufacture electronics, which, in turn, caused millions of Americans to pay higher prices.

These cases showcase the Antitrust Division’s strong record of criminal antitrust enforcement during the Obama Administration. Since President Obama took office, we have charged over 400 individuals and 140 corporations with criminal misconduct. We obtained over $8.5 billion in criminal fines and penalties. These large criminal fines and penalties serve an important deterrent effect because they directly affect something that corporate executives and investors care deeply about: a company’s bottom line. But another thing to note: the criminal fines obtained by the Antitrust Division provide funding for the Justice Department’s Crime Victim’s Fund, which helps victims of all types of crime obtain the medical, legal and financial services that they need to move forward with their lives. In California, this fund has helped victims of child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault.

We challenge other misconduct that raises – or threatens to raise – the prices that you as a consumer pay. Here are some recent examples.

Think about e-books, a popular alternative to hard copies. Because they cost less to produce, they should be cheaper. And until early 2010 they were. Suddenly, prices shot up. Why? Because certain book publishers and Apple entered into an illegal agreement to raise prices. We sued Apple and the publishers to put an end to their unlawful coordination.

What happened to e-book prices when the publishers and Apple were forced to compete? Prices for e-books fell. In 2010, when the price fixing conspiracy was in place, you often had to pay $12.99 or $14.99 for a best-seller. After we obtained judgments against Apple and the publishers, prices for best-sellers fell significantly, with many available for $9.99 or less. Thus, competition, once restored, worked to benefit you and other consumers.

But what about those who were victims of higher prices during the e-books conspiracy? Based on the facts we developed, state attorneys general and private plaintiffs have thus far secured over $160 million in refunds for the victims of this conspiracy. These refunds were directly credited to the consumers’ accounts with Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Apple.

At the Antitrust Division we also worry about mergers between competitors that put the American public at risk of higher prices and lower quality products. That was our concern a few years ago when AT&T wanted to buy its rival, T-Mobile. AT&T claimed that by eliminating T-Mobile as a competitor, you, as a consumer, would be better off. Our job at the Antitrust Division is to kick the tires on those claims and make sure they are accurate. Here, the facts we uncovered told us that the elimination of T-Mobile as a competitor risked having you pay higher prices and receiving worse contract terms for mobile service. We challenged the deal and AT&T ended up abandoning it.

And guess what happened next? Just like e-books, when the antitrust laws are enforced, competition flourishes. T-Mobile went back to competing to win your business. It spent billions of dollars improving the products it offers; it fought to woo customers by offering lower prices and better services; and it gave customers freedom of choice by offering to pay the early termination fees for those who switched to T-Mobile.

And T-Mobile’s competitors were compelled to respond. Sprint began offering lower prices and better plans. AT&T targeted T-Mobile customers with a $200 credit, plus money for smartphone trade-ins, if they switched to AT&T. T-Mobile responded by offering plans that allow customers to upgrade their phones twice a year. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint all felt compelled to match these plans.

A couple of months ago, in one of his final speeches as the lawyer for the American people, former Attorney General Holder summed up the role and purpose of antitrust enforcement. He said: “In the appropriate enforcement of the antitrust laws we make real the promise of our democracy and our founding documents. Vigorous competition in all spheres is what makes this nation exceptional. It makes progress more likely and promotes the general welfare.”

The hardworking men and women of the Antitrust Division remain true to this mission. We should be proud of them and grateful to them. They make the economy work for all of us.

Similarly, we are grateful for the work that the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do on a daily basis to help some of our most vulnerable citizens and communities. Together we can help to promote marketplaces where companies compete on price and quality for the hard earned dollars of American consumers.

Thank you for your time today and congratulations on organizing another great conference.

AAG Baer Remarks to NAAC 10-23-15 (53.39 KB)

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Director Ronald Davis of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Coons, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the many ways in which the Department of Justice is providing valuable support and resources to the nation’s 800,000 law enforcement officers in the more than 16,000 local, state and tribal police agencies and sheriff’s offices across the country.

I come to you today not just as the Director of the Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services – also known as COPS – but as one who has spent close to 30 years as a local police officer. I served 20 years in the Oakland Police Department rising to the rank of Captain, and close to nine years as police chief for the city of East Palo Alto, California. For me, the decision to become a cop was an easy one – I simply followed my father’s footsteps, who served 25 years in the Philadelphia Police Department.

I can tell you as a 30-year, second-generation cop, there is no greater or more noble profession than policing. And, I can also tell you without hesitation that the men and women who answer this calling are truly America’s finest. So, you can imagine the great satisfaction it brings me to lead the COPS Office and work for the Justice Department – an agency that provides tremendous support to local, state and tribal law enforcement.

For example, since 2009, COPS has awarded over $2 billion in hiring grants to create and preserve more than 10,000 police officer and deputy positions in nearly 2,600 law enforcement agencies. For some agencies, providing funding for just one officer may mean the difference in having a full shift and making sure officers have sufficient cover and safety.

COPS also supports the development of effective crime-fighting initiatives. As a police chief I implemented several of these initiatives which contributed to dramatic reductions in murders in my city – a city that was once dubbed the murder capital of the United States.

Over the past 20 years, the COPS Office has provided training to over 700,000 officers and deputies, and supports valuable research releasing publications on a wide range of issues from homeland security to reducing gang violence to building community trust and enhancing officer safety and wellness. These publications are critical to the field because most agencies have fewer than 50 officers and do not have the capacity to conduct this research on their own.

Just last month COPS released two valuable research reports – one addressing ambush attacks against police, and another presenting models for protecting the physical and psychological health of officers. These reports will help officer safety and save lives.

Through our executive sessions, COPS brings together the best and brightest minds in the field to tackle issues such as crime and violence, preventing violent extremism, handling mass casualty events, use of force and officer safety. The information gleaned from these sessions is distributed to the field.

Another way we help the field is through the COPS Collaborative Reform Initiative. At a law enforcement agency’s request, COPS examines key operational areas within the agency – such as training, internal investigations, use of force, and racial profiling – and provides recommendations that will enhance community trust and public safety. COPS then works closely with the agency in implementing these recommendations.

The Las Vegas police department was the first to complete this process and Collaborative Reform efforts are now underway in Spokane, Philadelphia, St. Louis County, Salinas, Calexico, and Fayetteville, with the latest request coming from the Milwaukee police chief.

This voluntary process has received support from the Civil Rights Division and my esteemed colleague, Vanita Gupta. It is considered in some cases as a viable option, when appropriate, over a pattern and practice investigation.

Through our Catalyst grants, COPS works with and supports the major law enforcement organizations in addressing key challenges facing law enforcement such as the use of force, animal cruelty, leadership development and mentoring, and officer safety and wellness.

The COPS Office also funds a Critical Response for Technical Assistance program that offers immediate, real-time assistance to agencies dealing with major public safety incidents.

For example, within days of the start of mass demonstrations in Ferguson, COPS was able to connect regional police leaders with police executives with experience dealing with similar issues. We have provided support to nearly a dozen agencies at their request. And, as with all COPS projects, the lessons learned from these cities are shared with the over 16,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.

This year, the COPS Office provided administrative support to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing – a task force comprised of law enforcement and community leaders – which issued 59 recommendations to help agencies and communities build trust and advance public safety.

While policing is primarily a local issue, the federal government has a critical role to play in helping our local law enforcement agencies respond to the challenges of policing in the 21^st century. Under the leadership of President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice has made supporting local law enforcement one of the Administration’s top priorities.

As a career police officer, I know firsthand just how important this support is, and I can say without hesitation that the men and women of the Department of Justice make this a priority every day.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Fast-track devolution approved for the city and wider region

Source: City of Portsmouth

Portsmouth City Council has welcomed the Government’s decision to fast-track establishing a new Strategic Authority for Portsmouth, Southampton Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight.

The confirmation today that the area will be included in the Government’s Devolution Priority Programme is a major step towards establishing the new Strategic Authority for the region with elections for a new Mayor now likely to be held in May 2026.

A new Strategic Authority would bring significant additional funding and powers devolved from government departments to the region, with a focus on driving economic growth, investment in infrastructure and strategic transport and planning. The elected Mayor will have responsibility for these new powers, all other council services, such as parks, libraries and waste collection, would continue to be delivered by existing councils.

Last year the four upper tier authorities across Hampshire & the Solent (Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council, Hampshire County Council and Isle of Wight Council) submitted a joint expression of interest to Government signalling their support for establishing a regional ‘strategic’ authority in order to access the additional funding and powers it could bring. This was followed in January by a request to be included in the Government’s Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), a fast-track programme designed to deliver new Strategic Authorities across England.

Government have signalled they will launch a public consultation on proposals for Strategic Authorities to seek local residents’ views. Government has been clear this is to gather feedback but is not a referendum on the proposals.

Cllr Steve Pitt, Leader of Portsmouth City Council, said:

“I am pleased Hampshire and The Solent has been selected as part of the Devolution Priority Programme and will ensure our area can benefit sooner from additional powers and investment for jobs and skills, housing and transport at a sub-regional level.

“I have always said I favoured a deal for just the Solent area without an elected Mayor, but government ruled this out as an option so we now focus on what we can do to make a positive impact for our area, and one benefit a Mayor would bring is a seat for our region at the Government’s new Council of Nations and Regions.

“We’re expecting government will fund the necessary changes without any impact on local taxpayers and once it has set out the next steps we’ll work with our partners to move things forward and get the best possible deal for our residents.”

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Update on fire at Barrow Centre, Mount Edgcumbe

Source: City of Plymouth

Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park has been closed to all visitors today (Wednesday) following a fire at the Barrow Centre yesterday evening.

Two flats and two holiday lets at the Centre have been seriously damaged by the fire, which was put out by crews from Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service assisted by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, who are still on site this morning.

The Barrow Centre was evacuated as soon as the fire was discovered and fortunately no one was injured.

Other sections of the Barrow Centre housing businesses and flats are now being assessed. Mount Edgcumbe House itself has not been impacted.

Sadly, those living in the damaged flats have lost their personal belongings. They were provided with temporary accommodation elsewhere in the park last night.

The cause of the fire is being investigated.

The buildings will now be assessed by structural engineers and the area around the Barrow Centre made safe and cordoned off.

The park is expected to reopen tomorrow and an update on when businesses in the Barrow Centre can re-open will be provided once all the assessments have been completed.

The Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park team is contacting anyone who have any upcoming events or bookings that may be affected by the fire.

Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park is jointly owned and managed by Plymouth City Council and Cornwall Council.

Plymouth councillor Tom Briars-Delve, Joint chair of the Mount Edgcumbe Joint Committee, said: “Everyone here is obviously devastated by the damage caused to the properties on the estate and our sympathies are with the families who have lost their possessions and the affected business owners. We will be supporting those families and the affected businesses however we can.

“We are very thankful no one was injured by the fire and will leave it to the fire service to investigate its cause and how it spread. We are grateful for the efforts of the fire crews throughout the night.

“Our priority is to support the families affected and to make the area safe so we can reopen the park and help the businesses resume their operations as soon as possible.”

Cornwall councillor Kate Ewert, Joint chair of the Mount Edgcumbe Joint Committee, said: “The fire is devastating for everyone involved and I know there is a sense of shock amongst those who live and work here but we can be thankful that no one has been hurt. The fire service did an incredible job in getting to the site quickly and protecting the remainder of the property.

“Our thoughts are with those who have lost all their possessions and I know the community is keen to pull together and provide support in whatever way it can. We will all be working together to help those impacted by this to get the Barrow Centre back up and running as soon possible.”

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Register now to avoid missing out on this year’s Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival

Source: Northern Ireland – City of Derry

Register now to avoid missing out on this year’s Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival

5 February 2025

Demand for the annual Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival is extremely high this year, with one day of the event already sold out.

This year’s festival will take place on Saturday, 1st and Sunday 2nd March. Part of the Sperrins Walking Programme this event provides a unique chance to discover the breath-taking landscapes of the Sperrins and Killeter, all while supporting physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. Led by the outdoor experts at Far and Wild in collaboration with Derry City and Strabane District Council, it is a must-attend for every avid walker!

Due to high demand, the Saturday, 1st March 8km walk, ‘The Moat at the Heart of Glenelly,’ is now sold out. But don’t miss your chance to join the stunning Killeter walk on Sunday, 2nd March ‘Myths & Stories from the Edge of Time’. This moderate 8km walk will take you from Lettercran in Co Donegal to Killeter village in Co Tyrone via the scenic Carrickaholten Forest. This fascinating walk traces the footsteps of emigrants, market-goers, smugglers, and travellers who have crossed the border area throughout history. Along the way, participants will learn stories at key landmarks and hear about the region’s rich cultural heritage. Registration will begin at 10am at the Killeter Heritage Centre but remember to pre-book your place at www.farandwild.org. The cost is £10.

A highlight of both days is the incredible community spirit and hospitality shown to all walkers. Whether at registration at Watt’s Bar in Plumbridge on Saturday, 1st March or at the Killeter Heritage Centre on Sunday, 2nd March, and after the walks, participants will experience the warm local welcome the Sperrins and Killeter are famous for. Enjoy refreshments, home-baked scones and bread, and the cosy comfort of open fires to dry off those soggy socks and rest tired feet. It’s the perfect opportunity to relax, swap stories, and enjoy some good craic with fellow walkers.

Encouraging people to come out and take part in the Killeter walk, the Mayor of Derry City and Strabane District Council, Cllr Lilian Seenoi Barr said: “It’s brilliant to see so many people have already registered for the Glenelly walk, and I’m sure the Killeter walk will sell-out soon. So please make sure and register to take part in the walk today.

“These walks will take you through the spectacular scenery that is the Sperrins, and it’s right on our doorsteps. We have no excuses, get out and enjoy all that this beautiful area has to offer. As well as experiencing the benefits of a day in the outdoors, you’ll also learn some fascinating facts about the history of the area and meet lots of new people. And when the hard miles are over, you can relax and enjoy a cuppa and a chat among friends.”

Both walks are part of the Sperrins Walking Programme, offering an excellent chance to discover the area’s scenic beauty and historical depth. While Saturday’s walk is fully booked, don’t miss out on the remaining spaces for Sunday’s event.

For further information and to book your place visit: www.farandwild.org

For more information about the whole Sperrins Walking Programme visit: https://sperrinspartnershipproject.com/sperrins-walking/

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Investiture of United States Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery.

Thank you, Chief Judge Smith. Greetings to the distinguished judges and court personnel, United States Attorney’s Office employees, family and friends of the Eastern District of Virginia’s new U.S. Attorney.

It is a great privilege to join so many distinguished guests to celebrate Zach Terwilliger, and to honor the Office of the United States Attorney and the judicial system in which it serves.

After the Constitution was ratified in 1789, one of the first Congressional actions was to adopt the Judiciary Act, establishing federal district courts and United States Attorneys, including one for what was then the District of Virginia.

When President George Washington selected the first United States Attorneys, he sent each one a handwritten letter. Some of the recipients had applied for the job, but to others, the appointment came as a surprise, and as a burden that was not always welcome.

It was a part-time job. There were no Assistant U.S. Attorneys or support staff. And it did not pay very well.

So, Washington appealed to the patriotism of his inaugural class of U.S. Attorneys. He wrote: “The high importance of the Judicial System in our national Government, made it an indispensable duty to select … characters to fill the … offices … [who] would discharge their respective trusts with honor to themselves and advantage to their Country.”

Virginia lawyer John Marshall, the future Chief Justice of the United States, was a recipient of that letter.

The internet web site for the Eastern District of Virginia proudly states, and I quote, “John Marshall … was appointed by President Washington to serve as the first United States Attorney for the District of Virginia.”

Virginia’s claim to Chief Justice Marshall as the first U.S. Attorney is quite a distinction. But it is not entirely accurate. Now, it is literally true that John Marshall was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Washington. But he never actually served as U.S. Attorney.

In fact, Marshall responded to the President with a letter of his own. Marshall wrote, “[T]hank you … very sincerely for the honor … [but] I beg leave to declare that … with real regret[,] I decline ….”

Washington replied with yet another letter. He wrote, “As some other person must be appointed to fill the Office of Attorney for the district of Virginia, it is proper your Commission should be returned to me.” He wanted the document back!

Perhaps that explains why, when the case of Marbury versus Madison came along in 1803, Chief Justice Marshall focused so intently on the importance of the signed commission.

Zachary Terwilliger did not share John Marshall’s reluctance to serve as U.S. Attorney. On the contrary, Zach was so eager that he did not even wait for a Presidential nomination, let alone a senate confirmation or a signed commission. Fortunately, it is well-established that the Attorney General, as a principal officer, possesses the authority to appoint federal prosecutors.

But the decision to select Zach was not made lightly, by either Attorney General Jeff Sessions or President Donald Trump. It was made with the support of two distinguished Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and with the gratitude of many members of the bench and bar.

And it was well deserved.

I was fortunate to work closely with Zach for more than a year. He helped me through my confirmation process. At the end of my Senate confirmation hearing, Zach told me that I probably would not need to return to Capitol Hill anytime soon. He said that the Deputy Attorney General rarely testifies before the Congress. That was the only bad advice he gave me.

Zach went on to serve as my Chief of Staff. That is one of the most challenging jobs in the Department of Justice. It requires legal skills. It requires political skills. It requires organizational skills. It requires tact. It requires endurance. And Zach performed it with distinction.

I want to offer three points of advice for success as United States Attorney, principles that Zachary Terwilliger exemplifies.

Point one: Know what you stand for.

A few months ago, on Law Day, President Trump explained that “we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather than according to the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty. We should not … take that success for granted.”

Consistent with the President’s words, we do not take success for granted. We know that the rule of law depends on the character and conduct of the people who enforce the law.

I encourage you to pay attention to the final clause of the oath that Zach swears today. It includes a promise to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

Not every government job carries the same duties. In order to fulfill your oath, you must understand the unique responsibilities of your office. You need to know what you stand for.

In a 1940 speech, Attorney General Robert Jackson spoke eloquently about what prosecutors stand for. He said that “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.”

Another Attorney General, Edward Levi, once observed that “it is by watching [law enforcement] that many of our citizens learn what kind of country this is…. People must believe, if not in the wisdom of a particular law, at least in the fairness and honesty of the enforcement process… Nothing can more weaken the quality of life … than … failure to make clear by words and deeds that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.”

More recently, Judge Richard Posner described our job this way: “The Department of Justice wields enormous power over people’s lives, much of it beyond judicial or political review. With power comes responsibility, moral if not legal, for its prudent and restrained exercise; and responsibility implies knowledge, experience and sound judgment, not just good faith.”

Zach understands that good faith is necessary to do the job well, but it is not sufficient. Wisdom and experience are required, and Zach brings those attributes to the task.

Point two: Maintain a sense of perspective.

I was a young prosecutor in the Department of Justice when Zach’s father, George Terwilliger, served as Deputy Attorney General, and Zach was a young boy running down the Main Justice hallways. Bill Barr was the Attorney General. There were many other superb officials in Main Justice, and in the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including Jeff Sessions in Southern Alabama.

Each of those great leaders faced unique challenges. You never know what crises may hit on your watch, but you can be sure that things will not always go as planned. Always keep in mind that we are just temporary stewards of these jobs.

The adjective “executive” in the Executive Branch refers to the obligation to get things done. You are required to make controversial decisions, often in exigent circumstances and with imperfect information. Then everybody else gets unlimited time to reflect on how they might have done things differently. If you worry too much about the criticism, you will never get anything done.

So after you identify priority goals, make sure you stay focused on achieving the priority goals. There is a sign in our office that reads, “Don’t tell me what I want to hear, just tell me what I need to know.” Zach always respected the importance of avoiding distractions and remaining focused on the things that really matter. As we say at Main Justice, keep moving forward.

Point three: Earn the love and support of family and friends.

There are times when these jobs require you to miss important events in the lives of your loved ones, both large and small. Zach worked many nights and weekends, but he never lost track of what he was missing. He always spoke about his family and tried to make up for lost time.

Zach, you learned those priorities from your parents, and you and Anne will pass them on to Charlotte and George. You had a life before this job. You will have a life after this job. Stay close to the people you want as part of that life.

Let me conclude with one final thought. Robert Jackson ended his 1940 speech to U.S. Attorneys with these words: “A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.”

If you follow that advice, you will remain faithful to our mission.

Zach, for the past two years I have observed your sense of fair play, your kindness, your commitment to the truth and the rule of law, and your humility.

John Marshall declined to take up George Washington’s charge to serve as U.S. Attorney. Thank you for proudly accepting the commission. You will serve with honor to yourself and advantage to your country.

It is an honor to work with you in the pursuit of justice.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the College of Europe’s Global Competition Law Centre

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Designing a System to Secure the Fair Administration of Competition Laws

I am delighted to be with you today to discuss how competition authorities can promote fundamental due process in competition investigation and enforcement. Ten years ago this topic would not have been high on the agenda for competition enforcers. Today, in a globalized economy with over 130 competition enforcers, almost everyone agrees that convergence on due process is an important aspect of competition enforcement. So the question is not whether we should promote due process, but how best to do so. While guidelines, recommendations, and best practices are useful and important, the international competition community is ready to do more. We should actively promote effective compliance to fundamental due process through a multilateral framework on procedures through which parties commit to basic fundamental norms, and that framework should be open for signature by all competition authorities.

To ensure due process for all, it is essential to have a system in place to promote compliance. Former Irish Foreign Minister Seán MacBride, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a founder of the European Convention on Human Rights, noted that guarantees such as the “right to the fair administration of justice” will “never be adequately or efficiently protected without a system of machinery to enforce their application, a system of implementation for the rights declared.” Today, I would like to discuss recent international efforts to design a system to secure the administration of competition laws according to due process principles.

For years, many jurisdictions, including the United States, have promoted due process in competition investigations and enforcement at home and abroad. Former Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer emphasized that “in a global economy, competition and consumers are best served where corporations and individuals have confidence that they will be treated fairly wherever they do business.” Adherence to due process principles helps agencies reach the right decision and improves the quality of antitrust enforcement overall. Due process also enhances the reputation of competition authorities.

Many competition authorities around the world have joined in this effort to promote due process, including initiatives to promote due process at the ICN and OECD, leading to the current proposal, the Multilateral Framework on Procedures.

As many of you know, in early June 2018, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim discussed publicly our months-long cooperation with leading antitrust agencies on an initiative to craft the Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (“MFP”). The MFP’s goal is to promote global due process in antitrust enforcement and thereby further improve cooperation among antitrust agencies around the world. The United States and our partners around the world agree that basic minimal due process protections are of fundamental importance in antitrust enforcement.

The goal of the MFP is to establish minimal procedural norms that are truly universal. The MFP is animated by fundamental norms, which are accepted widely across the globe and that most competition agencies already recognize. The MFP will combine this set of universal procedural norms with an adherence and review mechanism, under which the participants commit to these norms and agree to cooperate with each other regarding their compliance.

The fundamental principles set forth in the MFP were derived from the texts of competition chapters in several existing bilateral and regional agreements, as well as from the work related to due process conducted by international organizations such as the OECD and the ICN, in conjunction with an examination of procedures and practices of competition authorities around the world.

The draft text captures universal principles, using language that is versatile enough to cover both common as well as civil law jurisdictions, administrative as well as prosecutorial systems, and older as well as younger competition agencies.

The core principles identified in the MFP include basic commitments regarding non-discrimination, transparency, meaningful engagement, timely resolution, confidentiality protections, avoidance of conflicts of interest, proper notice, opportunity to defend, access to counsel, and independent judicial review of enforcement decisions.

The adherence and review mechanism under the MFP includes bilateral discussions and consultations between participating agencies, reporting by participants on the working of the MFP principles, as well as a proposed mechanism to review periodically any changes as may be needed. The adherence and review mechanisms under the MFP are an important step forward towards a mutual commitment amongst agency partners. The MFP also represents a substantial positive effort towards global respect for competition enforcement and the overall culture of competition we collectively have sought to promote.

The MFP is not a binding agreement in the international sense, but adhering to the framework is important, because breaches of a promise can have reputational consequences. As Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in June, “The rich network of relationships ensures that reputation matters, and that the promise to abide by an obligation becomes a potent means of enhancing compliance.”

Dozens of competition agencies from around the world have been spending countless hours and many months working on the MFP. The initial discussions culminated in the “Paris Draft” of the MFP, a remarkable document that reflects the current practices of many leading competition authorities around the world.

Over the summer, further discussions ensued among all interested antitrust agencies worldwide, including discussions with agencies on the sidelines of the Fordham Conference in New York in early September. A revised draft of the MFP was circulated recently, reflecting suggestions made at New York and since. We look forward to meeting with those interested in joining the MFP on the margins of the OECD in late November.

There has been widespread support for the MFP from numerous agencies around the world. We are delighted that so many countries are committed to the MFP and recognize its value, and will continue efforts to further improve it and move toward its enactment.

To date, the vast majority of agencies have expressed strong support for the MFP. A few agencies, however, have expressed some concerns with respect to the MFP structure and review mechanism. Let me address the more salient concerns.

First, a few agencies had raised questions about the need for mandatory review mechanisms. In general, a review mechanism is a key component of any agreement such as the MFP. The goal of the MFP is to strike a constructive path, promoting incremental progress through an acceptable implementation mechanism.

In light of these concerns, the review mechanisms in the MFP have been calibrated so that they are meaningful, but not burdensome. For example, unlike certain treaties, there are no mechanisms for binding dispute settlement, third-party mediation, independent expert reports, or private complaint procedures. Instead, there are modest proposals that include mechanisms for dialogue, agency self-reporting on adherence, and periodic assessments of the functioning of the framework, only as needed. This will allow for advancing the shared goals towards due process norms.

It is important to note that although meaningful review mechanisms of agreements relating to due process may appear novel in the antitrust context, they are routine in other contexts. For example, meaningful review of a country’s compliance with fundamental due process norms is common in the context of investment protections, human rights, anti-corruption, trade, tax, and development assistance.

In fact, even in the antitrust context, review mechanisms are not new. For example, in free trade agreements there are consultation provisions in various competition chapters. Likewise, in 2006 the European Competition Network (ECN) adopted the ECN Model Leniency Programme to “harmonise the key elements of leniency policies within the ECN.” In 2009, the ECN published an assessment report to “provide an overview of the status of convergence of the applicable provisions contained in the ECN leniency programmes.” If a network of regional competition authorities can agree to periodically assess the state of procedural convergence of their leniency programs, it seems only reasonable to have competition authorities periodically assess the state of procedural convergence on fundamental due process.

A second issue presented related to the possibility that the MFP can be confused to create a new international organization. The language has been modified to make it clear that the MFP does not create a new international organization. Instead, the MFP is a new multilateral arrangement for adherence to fundamental due process norms by the signatory agencies.

A third issue was whether certain competition agencies have the capacity to sign at the agency level. This was a fair concern, and we are pleased to have revised the draft to make clear that agencies can either sign or join the MFP by sending a letter through ICN providing notice of adherence. This is a common practice that has been employed previously in many contexts, including in the antitrust context. This change should allow any competition agency interested in joining the MFP to do so.

I should also note that although all of the interested agencies working on the MFP hope that every agency adheres to these principles, that the MFP is voluntary. Only agencies that want to join will be subject to the norms. Also, the MFP allows an agency to take a reservation if their law allows them to comply with almost everything but prevents compliance with a specific provision.

The international community can and should seek to promote convergence on core principles, while respecting diversity on the margins. That is what the MFP does.

Finally, let me address the issue that Commissioner Margrethe Vestager raised in her remarks at the Georgetown University conference regarding the relationship between the MFP and international organizations such as OECD and ICN. The Antitrust Division fully supports initiatives by OECD, ICN and other international organizations to promote due process. Indeed, the substantive principles set forth in the MFP are fully in line with – and, in fact, complement – these initiatives.

The ICN already recognizes regional competition networks like the ECN, bilateral and trilateral dialogues like those held by the North American partners last week in Mexico, competition chapters in free trade agreements such as KORUS and USMCA, and hundreds of cooperation agreements between competition authorities. Despite these developments, the ICN is as strong as ever, and the MFP will further complement its success. Indeed, the ICN expressly anticipates initiatives such as the MFP. The ICN Framework provides that “where the ICN reaches consensus on recommendations … it is left to its members to decide whether and how to implement the recommendations, for example, through unilateral, bilateral or multilateral arrangements.”

From the start, the MFP has been designed to go beyond mere guidance on procedural fairness. The MFP will reflect the commitment of its participants to uphold fundamental due process norms.

There are various other reasons why we believe the MFP is needed and does not duplicate the OECD or ICN. For example, the OECD has only 36 members, and its recommendations apply to countries rather than to competition agencies, where we would like to focus our efforts. And while around 140 agencies are members of the ICN, not all agencies are ICN members, though we encourage all to join.

Further, as currently structured the ICN is not set up for accountability and review of its recommendations. It has never had that role and it could dramatically change the culture of the ICN if it were to take on such a role, although at a later time the ICN may choose to change its culture. That time is not now, however, as we don’t want to risk the consensus-based good work the ICN does.

Let me close with an historical analogy. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, which included the fundamental due process commitment that “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations….” Yet at the very moment the U.S. delegate Eleanor Roosevelt was celebrating that victory, she said she still was not satisfied. Why? Because the declaration had no means for implementation. She said that while the adoption of this declaration was a monumental achievement, we should “now move on with new courage and inspiration to the completion” of a multilateral agreement with “measures for … implementation.” We all recognize that the time is ripe for us to join in moving forward with inspiration to implementation of a multilateral framework on fundamental due process.

We look forward to further discussions on the MFP in Paris in a few weeks. A significant number of competition authorities have recognized the benefits of the MFP and we look forward to being a partner in working together to bring it to fruition.

Thank you.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks to the Department of Justice Rural and Tribal Elder Justice Summit
Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Marc for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s one of the best jobs in the world.

This is a distinguished crowd. Thank you to:
- Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
- Six U.S. Attorneys: Bryan Schroder, Trent Shores, Ron Parsons, Andrew Murray, Pete Deegan, and Marc Krickbaum
- the head of our Office of Justice Programs and former U.S. Attorney for Northern Iowa, Matt Dummermuth,
- Katie Sullivan, the head of our Office on Violence Against Women,
- Darlene Hutchinson, the Director of our Office for Victims of Crime,
- Assistant Agriculture Secretary Anne Hazlett,
- Assistant Secretary Lance Robertson of HHS,
- SEC Regional Director Joel Levin,
- Postal Inspector Guy Cottrell,
- Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Nancy Berryhill,
- Director Deborah Cox Roush of Senior Corps, and
- A special thanks to all those who made this event possible, especially Toni Bacon, Andy Mao, Kate Peterson, and their teams at the Elder Justice Initiative and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Thank you all for being here for this summit. I think this turnout shows how important these issues are to the Department of Justice and to the Trump administration.

It’s good to be home. Des Moines is my home. This is where I played football, where I practiced law, where I prosecuted criminals as a United States Attorney, and it’s where I’m raising my family.

Iowa shaped my values.

One of those Iowa values is that we respect our elders. We recognize the debt that we owe to our parents and grandparents.

Many seniors in Iowa and across America spent their whole lives working, saving, and sacrificing so that they could enjoy a secure and peaceful retirement. And under President Trump their 401(k)s are looking good.

But criminals can try to take it all away with one phone call, one letter, or even one email.

Each year, an estimated $3 billion are stolen or defrauded from millions of American seniors. Through so-called grandparent scams, fake prizes or even outright extortion, criminals target our seniors to rob them of their hard-earned savings and their peace of mind.

And it appears as though this threat is only growing. The Senate Aging Committee’s Fraud Hotline received twice as many reports in 2016 as it received in 2015.

These fraud schemes can happen to anyone. And so I hope that no one will feel ashamed to come forward and report if they’ve been a victim. Some of my family members here in Iowa have received these phone calls. Some of you have, too.

At the Department of Justice, we acknowledge that rural areas are especially vulnerable to these crimes.

In tightly knit communities like the one I grew up in, people are generous and they develop a sense of trust with one another.

Criminals look at that and they see dollar signs.

Oftentimes local law enforcement in rural communities have to cover large areas of land with only a small number of officers. They don’t have the time or the resources to investigate fraud schemes that are often national or even international in scope.

Fortunately, the Department of Justice has their backs. As President Donald Trump has said, this administration supports state and local law enforcement 100 percent.

In this administration, we are well aware that 85 percent of law enforcement officers in this country serve at the state and local levels. We know that we can’t achieve our goals without them.

Over the past year we have taken historic new action to support our state and local partners and to keep our seniors safe.

This year our U.S. Attorneys’ offices have each designated an elder justice coordinator to help prevent crime by educating seniors about scams and other threats. Over just nine months, our elder justice coordinators participated in nearly 200 training, outreach, and coordination meetings attended by approximately 7,000 people.

Our elder justice coordinators are also customizing our strategy to protect seniors in their district and coordinating our prosecutions with state and local partners. That will help us complete more cases and secure more convictions.

In February, the Department conducted the largest elder fraud enforcement action in American history. We charged more than 200 defendants with fraud against elderly Americans and we brought civil actions against dozens more. The defendants in these cases allegedly stole from more than one million American seniors of more than half a billion dollars.

Just a few weeks ago, the Department extended a deferred prosecution agreement with a financial services company in Dallas. This company allegedly knew about criminals using their services for money laundering, but didn’t do anything about it. Some of their employees even took part in the schemes—including grandparent scams and fake prize scams targeting the elderly. In exchange for avoiding prosecution, the company is forfeiting $125 million which the Department will provide to the victims. The company has also agreed to implement anti-money laundering protections to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.

There are a lot of other cases that we could talk about—but I’ll just mention two right here in Iowa.

This year, a total of 33 defendants in Dubuque—11 at the federal level and 22 at the local level—have been convicted for a grandparent scam against a total of 285 American seniors. The defendants defrauding more than $750,000 and then wiring it to their co-conspirators in the Dominican Republic. Now they’ve been held accountable.

At the federal level, these cases were prosecuted by AUSA Tony Morfitt of our Elder Justice Task Force—Tony, great job.

In August, a jury convicted a man from outside of Des Moines for convincing elderly Iowans to sell off their investments and buy insurance from him. Instead of buying the insurance as promised, the defendant used most of the funds for personal expenses like remodeling his house and buying two new Harley Davidsons. I’m pleased to report that that house and those motorcycles have now been forfeited.

This case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Adam Kerndt and Mikaela Shotwell. Great work.

These are important accomplishments. We have increased the resources dedicated to these cases and we have increased our effectiveness in prosecuting them.

But there is more to do. And so today I am announcing our next steps.

First of all, we are improving training for our U.S. Attorneys’ offices.

Earlier this year the Department’s Elder Justice Initiative published its Elder Abuse Guide for Law Enforcement or EAGLE. EAGLE contains helpful information for prosecutors, including overviews of state and local law as well as best practices for evidence collection, interviewing older adults, and for documenting elder abuse. EAGLE is free and available right now to every law enforcement officer in the country.

Today I am announcing that the next edition of our Journal of Justice Policy and the Law—formerly known as the USA Bulletin—will focus on Elder Justice. It will also be the longest bulletin we’ve ever published since we started it back in 1953. These bulletins are public, and so they can be used by state and local prosecutors as well as our U.S. Attorneys’ offices. That will provide the knowledge and insights of some of the top experts on elder justice to the prosecutors who are on the front lines.

Second, we are investing in services for seniors who have been victimized by criminals.

I am announcing today that over the next 11 months, our Office for Victims of Crime will provide nearly $18 million to help seniors who are victims of crime. These funds can be used for priorities like legal services, telephone hotlines, and housing for seniors who have lost their homes—which is something that happens all too often. We are using these OVC funds for a wider variety of services for seniors than ever before.

And finally, we are continuing to enforce the law aggressively and forcefully.

On October 1st, the Department began our Money Mule Initiative, which is a coordinated effort against the transnational criminal organizations who are defrauding our seniors.

We are hitting the fraudsters where it hurts—in the wallet.

Our prosecutors have found that fraudsters avoid using banks to launder the money they take from their victims. Instead, they launder it through so-called money mules—Americans who collect the money and then send it overseas.

Oftentimes these are co-conspirators—as in the Dubuque case that I mentioned a moment ago. But sometimes they are simply good people who have been tricked into thinking that they are doing charity work or working for a legitimate business.

Working with our Postal Inspectors, FBI agents, and other law enforcement partners, we have identified a number of these money mules across America. We have even been able to determine which ones have been tricked into this work and which ones are knowing and willful conspirators.

In the first case, we knock on their door and we explain to them what’s really going on. We ask them to sign a letter acknowledging that it’s wrong and promising to stop. That in itself is shutting off large quantities of money for the fraudsters.

And in the second case—when we determine that they are part of a conspiracy—we are filing civil actions and taking them to court.

Since October 1, we’ve taken action to stop 400 money mules across 65 districts. These involve everything from grandparent scams to romance scams, fake lotteries, IRS imposters, and fake tech support schemes.

The FBI and our Postal Inspectors have interviewed 300 money mules and sent 300 warning letters. We’ve charged 10 defendants and filed 25 civil actions. We’ve executed search warrants across America, including here in the Southern District of Iowa.

These are impressive numbers.

Our goal is to reduce crime and protect America’s seniors. And we have good reasons to believe that our work with our law enforcement partners is reducing crime and having a real impact on the seniors of this country.

The Postal Inspection Service has estimated that payments by mass mail fraud victims to foreign post office boxes has dropped by 94 percent since 2016—from 150,000 per month to approximately 10,000 per month now.

There are many causes for that, but that is a remarkable achievement—and I want to thank everyone who has played a role in our efforts.

We are going to keep up this pace.

We are going to continue to provide our prosecutors and our state and local partners with the resources that they need. And we’re going to keep putting fraudsters in jail.

I want to thank each of you again for your contribution to this effort. Each of us has a role to play—and certainly not just those of us in government. All of us can be on the lookout for fraud schemes and report suspected criminal activity.

If we do that—and if we remain vigilant—then we can ensure that every senior has the safety and peace of mind that they deserve.

MIL Security OSI –
February 6, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks at the Department of Justice’s Veterans Appreciation Day Ceremony

Source: United States Attorneys General 13

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Lee for that kind introduction and thank you for your 36 years of service to the Department of Justice and your 12 years of stewardship of the Department’s finances.

I also want to thank the Joint Armed Forces Color Guard for the Presentation of the Colors and Girale Wilson-Takahashi from our COPS office for that beautiful rendition of the National Anthem.

Thank you all for being here for the Department’s eighth Veterans’ Appreciation Day.

Above all, thank you to the 150 veterans who have joined us today.

Thank you for your service in our Armed Forces—and thank you for your service in this Department.

At this Department of Justice, we recognize that public safety is government’s first and most important priority.

The men and women of our Armed Forces—Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard—risk their lives for that mission every day, and each of us owes them a debt of gratitude.

This Department also works for public safety by enforcing our laws—but we know that our work depends upon the bravery and sacrifice of our troops.

We are proud of each one of the 27,000 veterans who serve in this Department.

Your skills, your patriotism, and above all your selfless character make you the kind of employees that any employer would want. But you’ve chosen to continue to serve your country—you’ve chosen to work in the Department of Justice. I commend you for that.

We are well aware that heroes walk these hallways.

Outside of my office is a memorial with the names of colleagues who during World War II made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our grateful country.

I also know firsthand of the heroes we have in department, because I am now literally surrounded by them each and every day. Most of the FBI agents in my security detail are veterans.

That includes Special Agent Damon Flores, who is a former Navy rescue swimmer in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf. After his service in the Navy, he went to college on the GI Bill and got an accounting and finance degree. He quickly realized that accounting was not as exciting as being a rescue swimmer. He wanted a little more adventure, and so he signed up with the FBI. He marked his 14th anniversary with the Bureau just yesterday. Damon, congratulations.

We’re also proud to be the home of Maura Quinn of DEA.

Maura graduated from the Naval Academy, and then in flight school she chose to fly helicopters so she could pilot a combat aircraft. After graduation she deployed twice—first with a carrier battle group to the Indian Ocean and then in support of Operation Desert Shield.

She served as an instructor pilot for two years and went to law school at night. As if she weren’t busy enough, she gave birth to two children before graduation.

After law school, she joined the United States Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California and then the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. She then served for eight years in the Chief Counsel’s office at DEA. Over that time she became an expert in technology law—and today she serves as DEA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Information Systems. Maura, thank you for your service.

I could go on and on. There are roughly 26,998 more examples that I could talk about.

But this is the caliber of people that we are so grateful to have in this Department.

Through our Veterans Employment Office in the Justice Management Division, we have made hiring veterans a priority and helped them make the transition into careers with the Department.

We want more exemplary employees like Damon Flores and Maura Quinn.

We will continue to invest in our heroes—because you’re a good investment. You are, in the words of General John Kelly, “the very best this country produces.”

Now I have the honor of introducing someone who knows that as well as anyone.

Our keynote speaker is the Director of Military Force Management Policy for the Air Force, Major General Robert LaBrutta. You might think of him as the Air Force’s head of human resources.

Major General LaBrutta has served in the Air Force for the last 37 years.

Today he is responsible for setting force management policy that affects more than half a million Air Force personnel—issues like assignments, evaluation, readiness, and transitioning back to civilian life.

Before this assignment he served as Commander of the Second Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi.

He has earned a number of distinguished awards including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement Medal, and many others.

Please join me in welcoming Major General Robert LaBrutta.

MIL Security OSI –

February 6, 2025