NewzIntel.com

Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI Security: Illegal Immigrant Sentenced to 5 ½ Years in Federal Prison for Trafficking 70,000 Fentanyl Pills from Mexico into Evansville

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    EVANSVILLE— Javier Moreno-Garibaldi, 38, of Mexico has been sentenced to five and a half years in federal prison followed by two years of supervised release after pleading guilty to distribution of over 400 grams of fentanyl.

    According to court documents, in May of 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration began an investigation into a drug trafficking organization operating in Mexicali, Mexico, trafficking large quantities of fentanyl and methamphetamine through California. During the investigation, law enforcement officers intercepted thousands of fentanyl pills shipped or transported by the drug traffickers into Southern Indiana and Western Kentucky.

    As part of the investigation, undercover law enforcement officers arranged to purchase 60,000 fentanyl pills from an unknown supplier based in Mexicali, Mexico. The source of supply sent a series of text messages discussing the arrival of the courier at an Evansville hotel, how to handle the money and counting of pills, and requiring $120,000 and a $2,500 delivery fee.

    On September 4, 2023, Javier Moreno-Garibaldi arrived at a Holiday Inn in Evansville, Indiana, driving a Honda SUV with California plates. The undercover officer met with Moreno-Garibaldi and agreed to go to a safehouse to count the pills and the $120,000 owed for the drugs. Moreno-Garibaldi put a dog kennel box full of pills into the undercover officer’s car and was arrested without incident. A search of the box revealed five separate bags containing a large amount of counterfeit “M-30” pills containing fentanyl. The field weight of the seized pills was 15.7 pounds (7.064 kilograms), or approximately 70,000 pills.

    At the time of his arrest, Moreno-Garibaldi was in the United States unlawfully.

    “Every overdose, addiction, and life lost to fentanyl is a tragedy that devastates our families, friends, and communities,” said John E. Childress, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. “These dangerous drugs are pouring into our neighborhoods in staggering amounts, driven by Mexican cartels and enabled by traffickers and dealers across the country. Our office remains committed to working alongside the DEA, Evansville Police Department, Vanderburgh County Drug Task Force, and Owensboro Police Department to aggressively investigate and prosecute those involved in these deadly networks.”

    “Without a doubt, lives were saved by this seizure of 70,000 fentanyl-laced M30 pills.  Every day we see the destruction and death caused by this illicit drug.  DEA is committed to targeting and destroying drug trafficking organizations who continue to attack our communities and distribute fentanyl in our streets,” said Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge Daniel J. Schmidt.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration, Evansville Police Department, Vanderburgh County Drug Task Force, and Owensboro Police Department investigated this case. The sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Childress thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauren M. Wheatley, who prosecuted this case. 

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

    According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, as little as two milligrams of fentanyl can be fatal, depending on a person’s body size, tolerance, and past usage—a tiny amount that can fit on the tip of a pencil. Seven out of ten illegal fentanyl tablets seized from U.S. streets and analyzed by the DEA have been found to contain a potentially lethal dose of the drug.

    One Pill Can Kill: Avoid pills bought on the street because One Pill Can Kill. Fentanyl has now become the leading cause of death for adults in the United States. Fentanyl is a highly potent opioid that drug dealers dilute with cutting agents to make counterfeit prescription pills that appear to be Oxycodone, Percocet, Xanax, and other drugs. Fake prescription pills laced with fentanyl are usually shaped and colored to look like pills sold at pharmacies. For example, fake prescription pills known as “M30s” imitate Oxycodone obtained from a pharmacy, but when sold on the street the pills routinely contain fentanyl. These pills are usually round tablets and often light blue in color, though they may be in different shapes and a rainbow of colors. They often have “M” and “30” imprinted on opposite sides of the pill. Do not take these or any other pills bought on the street – they are routinely fake and poisonous, and you won’t know until it’s too late.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Tulsan Sentenced for Assaulting and Strangling Ex-Girlfriend

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    TULSA, Okla. – Today, U.S. District Judge John D. Russell sentenced Nicholas Jarrod Weeden, 43, for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm in Indian Country and Assault of an Intimate/Dating Partner by Strangling and Suffocating in Indian Country. Judge Russell ordered Weeden to serve 115 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

    According to court documents, in April 2024, Weeden went to his ex-girlfriend’s house. They began arguing and Weeden strangled the victim. He then hit her head against the wall and door, grabbed a wooden club, and hit her over the head with it. The victim fought back enough to escape and called 911 for help.

    Weeden is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and will remain in custody pending transfer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

    The FBI and the Tulsa Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stacey Todd and Melissa Weems prosecuted the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Tulsan Sentenced for Assaulting and Strangling Ex-Girlfriend

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    TULSA, Okla. – Today, U.S. District Judge John D. Russell sentenced Nicholas Jarrod Weeden, 43, for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm in Indian Country and Assault of an Intimate/Dating Partner by Strangling and Suffocating in Indian Country. Judge Russell ordered Weeden to serve 115 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

    According to court documents, in April 2024, Weeden went to his ex-girlfriend’s house. They began arguing and Weeden strangled the victim. He then hit her head against the wall and door, grabbed a wooden club, and hit her over the head with it. The victim fought back enough to escape and called 911 for help.

    Weeden is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and will remain in custody pending transfer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

    The FBI and the Tulsa Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stacey Todd and Melissa Weems prosecuted the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, Canada

    Despite provincewide protests, Ontario’s Bill 5 officially became law on June 5. Critics warn of the loss of both environmental protections and Indigenous rights.

    The law empowers the province to create special economic zones where companies or projects don’t have to comply with provincial regulations or municipal bylaws.

    Bill 5, also known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, reduces the requirements for environmental assessment. By doing so, it weakens ecological protection laws that safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and at-risk species.

    Indigenous rights and Indigenous knowledge are critical for planetary health. But the bill passed into law with no consultation with First Nations. Therefore, it undermines the duty to consult while seemingly favouring government-aligned industries.

    Indigenous Peoples have long stewarded the environment through sustainable practices that promote ecological and human health. Bill 5’s provisions to allow the bypassing of environmental regulations and shift from a consent-based model to one of consultation violate Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Métis lawyer Bruce McIvor has described the shift as a “policy of legalized lawlessness.”

    Compounding environmental threats

    Wildfires that are currently burning from British Columbia to northern Ontario are five times more likely to occur due to the effects of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    On the federal level, Bill C-5, called the Building Canada Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 6 by Prime Minister Mark Carney. This bill further compounds the threat to environmental protections, species at risk and Indigenous rights across the country in favour of resource extraction projects.

    It removes the need for the assessment of the environmental impacts of projects considered to be of “national interest.”

    Ring of Fire — special economic zone?

    Ford and Carney want to fast-track the so-called Ring of Fire mineral deposit within Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario by labelling it a “special economic zone” and of “national interest.” The proposed development is often described as a potential $90 billion opportunity.

    But scientists say there are no reliable estimates of the costs related to construction, extraction, benefit sharing and environmental impacts in the Ring of Fire.

    The mining development could devastate traditional First Nations livelihoods and rights. It could also worsen the effects of climate change in Ontario’s muskeg, the southernmost sea ice ecosystem in the world.

    Northern Ontario has the largest area of intact boreal forest in the world. Almost 90 per cent of the region’s 24,000 residents are Indigenous. The Mushkegowuk Anniwuk, the original people of the Hudson Bay lowlands, refer to this area as “the Breathing Lands” — Canada’s lungs. Cree nations have lived and stewarded these lands for thousands of years.

    Journalist Jessica Gamble of Canadian National Geographic says the James Bay Lowlands, part of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, are “traditional hunting grounds” and “the largest contiguous temperate wetland complex in the world.”

    This ecosystem is home to 200 different migratory bird species and plays a critical role in environmental health through carbon sequestration and water retention. The Wildlands League has described the area as “home to hundreds of plant, mammal and fish species, most in decline elsewhere.”

    Northern Ontario, meantime, is warming at four times the global average.

    Jeronimo Kataquapit is a filmmaker from Attawapiskat who is spearheading the “Here We Stand” campaign in opposition to Bill 5 with Attawapiskat residents and neighbouring Mushkegowuk Nations and Neskantaga First Nation. As the spokesperson for Here We Stand, he said: “Ontario’s Bill 5 and Canada’s proposed national interest legislation are going to destroy the land, pollute the water, stomp all over our treaty rights, our inherent rights, our laws and our ways of life.”

    Endangered species — polar bears

    An estimated 900 to 1,000 polar bears live in Ontario, mostly along the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts.

    But there has been a 73 per cent decline in wildlife populations globally since the 1970s, according to the World Wildlife Fund. In Canada, species of global concern have declined by 42 per cent over the same time. Canada’s Arctic and boreal ecosystems, once symbols of the snow-capped “Great White North,” are now at risk.

    Polar bears, listed as threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act and of “special concern” nationally, are particularly sensitive to human activities and climate change. Polar bears and ringed seals are culturally significant and serve as ecological indicators for ecosystems.

    Melting sea ice has already altered their behaviour, forcing them to spend more time on land.

    Cree First Nations in Northern Ontario’s biodiverse Treaty 9 territory are collaborating with federal and provincial governments and conservationists to protect polar bears. Right now, there is recognition of the importance of Cree knowledge in planning and the management of polar bears.

    The new Ontario law removes safeguards protecting the province’s endangered species, such as the Endangered Species Act. It strips key protections for at-risk wildlife, such as habitat protections, environmental impact assessments and ecosystems conservation.

    Climate change and weaker environmental protections will lead to irreversible damage to our environment and biodiversity. The ecosystem services that each animal, insect and plant provides — like cleaning the air we breathe and water we drink — are essential for a healthy province.

    The impact of Bill 5 and C-5 on these species is likely to be severe.

    Short-term gains at the expense of long-term damage

    Ontario could benefit from improved infrastructure and economic growth, but development requires careful planning and collaboration. It should rely on innovative science-based solutions, especially Indigenous sciences. And it should never infringe on Indigenous rights, bypass environmental assessments or threaten endangered species.

    While Bill 5 commits to the duty to consult with First Nations, it falls short of the free, prior and informed consent required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since becoming Canadian law in June 2021, the federal government has been obligated to align its laws with UNDRIP.

    With Bill 5 in place, some of Ontario’s major projects may be fast-tracked with minimal safeguards. Both Bill 5 and the proposed C-5 prioritize short-term economic gains that will cause irreversible environmental damage and violate legal obligations under UNDRIP.

    Lawrence Martin, Director of Lands and Resources at the Mushkegowuk Council, contributed to this article.

    Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo works in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change (EUC) at York University as a Postdoctoral Fellow, facilitating a collaborative project on human-polar bear coexistence in Hudson Bay and James Bay.

    – ref. ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-not-for-sale-but-new-ontario-law-prioritizes-profits-over-environmental-and-indigenous-rights-258553

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Dynamic Estimate)

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    The Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) previously reported that H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, would increase the primary deficit by $2.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period. That estimate reflects a $3.7 trillion reduction in revenues and a $1.3 trillion reduction in noninterest outlays. It does not account for how the bill would affect the economy.

    Under House Rule XIII(8), H.R. 1 is classified as major legislation and CBO and JCT are required, to the extent practicable, to account for the budgetary effects of changes in the economy resulting from the bill. CBO and JCT have now had time to complete that analysis and estimate the following relative to CBO’s January 2025 baseline:

    • The economic effects of H.R. 1 would decrease the primary deficit by $85 billion over the 2025-2034 period, primarily reflecting an increase in economic output; and
    • The bill would increase interest rates, which would boost interest payments on the baseline projection of federal debt by $441 billion.

    Accounting for those budgetary effects, CBO’s estimate under House Rule XIII(8) is that H.R. 1 would increase deficits by $2.8 trillion over the 2025-2034 period (see Table 1).

    Table 1.

    Estimated Revenues, Noninterest Outlays, and Net Interest Costs Under H.R. 1
       

    By Fiscal Year, Billions of Dollars
       

    2025-2029

    2030-2034

    2025-2034

    Conventional Estimate

    		            

    Revenues

    -2,129

    		  

    -1,541

    		  

    -3,670

    		  

    Noninterest Outlays

    -373

    		  

    -881

    		  

    -1,254

    		  
     

    Increase in the Primary Deficit

    1,756

    		  

    660

    		  

    2,416

    		  

    Budgetary Feedback From Macroeconomic Effects Under House Rule XIII(8)

    		          

    Revenues

    35

    		  

    88

    		  

    124

    		  

    Noninterest Outlays

    -2

    		  

    41

    		  

    39

    		  
     

    Decrease (-) in the Primary Deficit

    -37

    		  

    -47

    		  

    -85

    		  

    Net Interest Costsa

    199

    		  

    242

    		  

    441

    		  
     

    Increase in the Deficit

    161

    		  

    195

    		  

    356

    		  

    Dynamic Estimate Under House Rule XIII(8)

    		          

    Revenues

    -2,094

    		  

    -1,452

    		  

    -3,546

    		  

    Noninterest Outlays

    -375

    		  

    -840

    		  

    -1,215

    		  
     

    Increase in the Primary Deficit

    1,719

    		  

    613

    		  

    2,332

    		  

    Net Interest Costsa

    199

    		  

    242

    		  

    441

    		  
     

    Increase in the Deficit

    1,918

    		  

    855

    		  

    2,773

    		  

    Memorandum:

    		        

    Increase in Debt Held by the Publicb

    End of 2029

    End of 2034

    		    

    Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

    5.3

    		  

    7.1

    		      

    Billions of Dollars

    2,119

    		  

    3,328

    		      

    a. Includes only the changes to net interest costs stemming from changes to interest rates on the baseline projection of federal debt. By long-standing convention, estimates under House Rule XIII(8) do not include any increases or decreases in interest payments on the federal debt that would arise from an estimated change in borrowing needs. Consistent with that approach, this estimate does not include the increases in interest payments that would arise from net increases inborrowing needs that would result from enacting the bill.

    b. Includes the dynamic estimate under House Rule XIII(8) plus increases in interest payments on the federal debt that would arise from the estimated net increases in borrowing needs. Total increases in deficits would be $2,074 billion from 2025 to 2029, $1,352 billion from 2030 to 2034, and $3,426 billion over the entire 2025-2034 period. Total effects on deficits are not equal to the effects on debt held by the public at the end of the projection period because credit programs are treated differently in the two calculations. Total increases in net interest costs would be $364 billion from 2025 to 2029, $703 billion from 2030 to 2034, and $1,067 billion over the entire 2025-2034 period.

    CBO’s estimate of how the economic effects of H.R. 1 would affect the deficit builds on JCT’s estimates of the tax provisions of the bill. JCT estimated that those provisions would result in economic changes that would decrease primary deficits by $103 billion because revenues would be higher and outlays for refundable tax credits would be lower.

    CBO’s analysis expands on JCT’s analysis in two important ways. First, it reflects the effects that the nontax provisions of H.R. 1 would have on the economy. Second, it reflects the effects of interest rate changes on net interest outlays for debt projected in the baseline. The effects of those rate changes on net interest outlays are large because the existing stock of debt is historically large. Because of the large stock of debt projected in the baseline, those increases in interest payments more than offset the primary deficit reductions driven by increases in economic output. The interest rate changes result from both the tax provisions analyzed by JCT and the remaining provisions of H.R. 1 analyzed by CBO. Because the tax provisions increase the deficit by more than the nontax provisions reduce the deficit (especially in the earlier years of the 2025-2034 period), the tax provisions are an important driver behind the higher interest rates that lead to increased net outlays for interest on the baseline projection of federal debt.

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase debt held by the public at the end of 2034 to 124 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from the agency’s January 2025 baseline projection of 117 percent of GDP. That projection includes costs associated with servicing the additional debt attributable to the legislation. CBO’s estimate of the effects of H.R. 1 on the deficit under House Rule XIII(8) does not include those costs. (By long-standing convention, those costs are excluded from estimates under that rule because such estimates do not include any changes in interest payments on the federal debt that would arise from an estimated net increase or decrease in the deficit.) After accounting for those effects, which are an input into the projection of debt, CBO estimates that the bill would increase total deficits by $3.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period.

    How H.R. 1 Would Affect the Economy

    Building on JCT’s analysis of the tax provisions of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that, overall, H.R. 1 would affect the economy in the following ways relative to CBO’s January 2025 baseline:

    • Real (that is, adjusted to remove the effects of inflation) GDP would increase by an average of 0.5 percent over the 2025-2034 period,
    • Interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes would go up by an average of 14 basis points (a basis point is one one-hundredth of a percentage point) over the period, and
    • Inflation would increase by a small amount through 2030.

    How H.R. 1 Would Affect Real GDP

    The agency estimates that H.R. 1 would increase real GDP by 0.5 percent, on average, over the 2025-2034 period relative to CBO’s January 2025 projections. That effect would be positive in all years, peaking in 2026 at 0.9 percent. In CBO’s assessment, average annual real GDP growth would be 0.09 percentage points higher from 2025 to 2029 and 0.04 percentage points higher over the entire 2025-2034 period relative to the agency’s January 2025 projections. CBO’s estimates of those effects on real GDP are consistent with other groups’ estimates of those effects.

    The provisions of the bill would affect real GDP in the short and longer term through four main channels: changes in aggregate demand, changes in the supply of labor, changes in the capital stock (resulting from changes in investment), and changes in total factor productivity (TFP; the potential productivity of labor and capital, excluding the effects of cyclical changes in economic activity). In the short run, changes in real GDP would be driven primarily by aggregate demand effects. Over the longer term, changes in real GDP would be determined by changes in potential (maximum sustainable) output, which would be driven by changes in the supply of labor, capital, and TFP growth.

    Effects on Aggregate Demand.In the short term, CBO’s estimate of the legislation’s effect on real GDP is mostly driven by increases in aggregate demand. Relative to CBO’s January 2025 projections, H.R. 1 would increase real GDP by 0.9 percent in 2026. Because the effects of changes in aggregate demand would subside quickly, the temporary boost from demand-side factors would diminish after 2026.

    H.R. 1 would increase aggregate demand by increasing most households’ income after taxes and transfers. The effects of the increase in income on real GDP would depend on how H.R. 1 affected households’ income across different levels of income. That is because the increase in demand depends on the share of the additional dollars received that are spent, and spending by households with lower income tends to be more sensitive to changes in income than spending by households with higher income. CBO’s estimate of aggregate demand also reflects how households’ income would be affected by states’ responses to the bill’s changes to federal health programs—primarily Medicaid—and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    Effects on Labor Supply. CBO estimates that over the 2025-2034 period, H.R. 1 would increase labor supply by 0.6 percent, on average, relative to the January baseline. That effect would peak at 0.9 percent in 2026—an effect equivalent to increasing the number of employed workers by 1.5 million—before gradually falling to 0.6 percent by 2034. The increase in the supply of labor would increase average annual potential GDP growth by 0.08 percentage points from 2025 to 2029 and by 0.03 percentage points over the entire 2025-2034 period.

    Most of the increase in labor supply is driven by the reduction in marginal tax rates on labor income. (Under current law, those tax rates are scheduled to increase in 2026.) Lowering those tax rates increases incentives to work. in Medicaid, SNAP, and student loan programs would increase the supply of labor to a lesser degree. The increase in labor supply would be partially offset by a reduction in the size of the civilian noninstitutionalized population.The increase in resources provided for interior immigration enforcement and detention is estimated to result in more people’s being deported and detained, particularly among working-age immigrants.

    Effects on the Capital Stock. On net, H.R. 1 would boost the size of the capital stock (that is, the stock of tangible and intangible productive assets with an expected service life of one year or more that are used to produce goods and services). The increase in the capital stock reflects an initial increase in private investment, which would peak in 2027. CBO estimates that H.R. 1 would cause total private investment to be 1.2 percent higher in that year than CBO projected it would be in its January 2025 baseline. Private investment would decline in the later years of the projection period. In 2034, the capital stock would be roughly unchanged from what it was projected to be in the January 2025 forecast. The changes in the capital stock would increase average annual potential GDP growth by 0.02 percentage pointsfrom 2025 to 2029 but would have a near-zero effect on potential GDP growth over the entire 2025‑2034 period.

    The bill would affect private investment through three major channels. First, on net, provisions of the bill would create an incentive for additional private investment. Tax provisions and provisions related to oil and gas production would have the largest effects on those incentives.The effects on incentives would be larger in the earlier years of the period analyzed because certain tax provisions that provide more generous deductions for capital investment are temporary. Second, private investment would increase in response to the larger labor supply, which would, in turn, increase the return on investment. Finally, by increasing the deficit, the bill would reduce the resources available for private investment and put upward pressure on interest rates. In turn, that would reduce private investment (an effect often referred to as crowding out). The effect of the three channels on private investment would turn negative in 2030 as certain provisions that would increase investment expired.

    Effects on Total Factor Productivity. H.R. 1 would have small positive effects on the level of TFP. On average over the 2025-2034 period, the bill would increase the level of TFP by less than one-tenth of one percent. The changes in TFP growth would slightly increase average annual potential GDP growth over the entire 2025-2034 period.

    Several factors would have small positive effects on TFP growth, including the bill’s effects on domestic oil and gas production, physical infrastructure investment, investment in research and development, permitting requirements, and spectrum auctions. Other effects of the bill would have small negative effects on TFP growth, including changes in educational attainment and a reduction in the number of individuals working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that stems from changes in higher education and immigration policy.

    How H.R. 1 Would Affect Interest Rates

    CBO estimates that H.R. 1 would increase interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes by an average of 14 basis points over the 2025-2034 period relative to CBO’s January 2025 projections. In the short run, the bill would increase aggregate demand, increase employment, and put modest upward pressure on inflation. CBO expects that monetary policy officials would slow the decline of their target for the federal funds rate in response to those economic changes—increasing it relative to CBO’s January projections. In the near term, the changes in the path of the target rate would put upward pressure on the federal government’s longer-term borrowing rates.

    In the longer run, the bill would increase government borrowing rates relative to CBO’s January 2025 projections through two channels. First, greater federal borrowing would push up interest rates. Second, the bill would increase the supply of labor relatively more than it would increase the size of the capital stock. The resulting reduction in the amount of capital per worker would also increase interest rates.

    How H.R. 1 Would Affect Inflation

    CBO estimates that H.R. 1 would cause inflation (as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers) over the first several years of the 2025-2034 period to be slightly higher than in CBO’s January 2025 projections, even with the tighter monetary policy noted above. That effect would peak in 2027; CBO estimates that H.R. 1 would increase the inflation rate by 0.12 percentage points in that year. CBO estimates the bill would not affect inflation after 2030.

    Budgetary Feedback of the Macroeconomic Effects of H.R. 1

    In CBO’s assessment, macroeconomic effects—that is, effects that result from changes in the economy—of H.R. 1 would have the following budgetary effects over the 2025-2034 period:

    • An increase of $124 billion in revenues, mostly reflecting the positive effects of higher real output that stem from both tax and spending provisions of the bill;
    • An increase of $39billion in noninterest spending, mostly reflecting the effects of higher inflation; and
    • An increase in net outlays for interest on projections of federal debt in the baseline of $441 billion because interest rates would be higher.

    CBO’s estimate of the deficit effect of H.R. 1 under House Rule XIII(8) reflects those three macroeconomic effects. The agency’s estimate of how H.R. 1 would affect its baseline projection of debt also reflects $76 billion more in net interest outlays. The additional net interest outlays are higher because of the higher interest rates on additional federal debt attributable to the bill and additional debt-service costs associated with the bill’s feedback effect on federal borrowing (see Table 1).

    Under House Rule XIII(8), CBO is also required, to the extent practicable, to provide an assessment of the budgetary and economic effects of major legislation in the 20-year period after the end of the projection period. From 2034 to 2054, the effects of crowding out on investment would continue to grow, producing an increasingly negative net effect on investment. Because of that, CBO estimates that the positive effects of H.R. 1 on the primary deficit from higher output would shrink over time, and net interest outlays would continue to be pushed up by higher interest rates. As a result, the macroeconomic effects of H.R. 1 would also increase projected deficits in CBO’s extended baseline.

    How CBO Estimated the Macroeconomic and Budgetary Feedback Effects of H.R. 1

    To estimate the budgetary effects of the macroeconomic changes resulting from the bill, CBO first analyzed how the bill would affect key macroeconomic variables (real GDP, interest rates, and inflation) using a variety of models. Using those estimates, the agency then estimated how economic changes stemming from the bill would affect federal spending and revenues.

    Real GDP

    To estimate the effects of H.R. 1 on real GDP, CBO analyzed the short-term effects and longer-term effects. In the short term, the bill would affect the economy by reducing tax liabilities, which would increase the demand for goods and services. In turn, increased demand would push real GDP up relative to potential (or maximum sustainable) output. The increase in demand reflects differences in how households would adjust their spending in response to changes in resources available to them. CBO used its estimate of how the changes in federal revenues and spending are allocated to households to inform its estimate of changes in aggregate demand.

    To estimate longer-term effects of the bill on real GDP, CBO used a Solow-type growth model to translate changes in labor supply, the capital stock, and TFP into changes in potential output. CBO and JCT used a broader suite of models and approaches to estimate the effects of the provisions of H.R. 1 on the incentives to work and invest and on TFP growth. That suite included models for estimating the effects of the following on the supply of labor: individual income tax rates, SNAP, Medicaid, higher education policy, and immigration policy. The suite also included models for estimating the effects of several factors on business investment: tax provisions; oil and gas provisions; and changes in permitting requirements, Medicaid, the supply of labor, and public borrowing.

    CBO’s model for estimating the effect of public borrowing on private investment depends on three relationships. First, it depends on how the policy’s effect on the deficit would affect overall spending. For example, on average, policies that increase the resources available to lower-income households boost overall spending more per dollar of deficit than policies that affect higher income households. Second, the model depends on the change in interest rates that would result from the change in overall spending. Third, the model depends on the response of investment to the change in interest rates. In addition, the suite included models for estimating the effects of the following factors on TFP growth: oil and gas production, physical infrastructure investment, research and development, higher education policy, permitting requirements, spectrum auctions, and immigration policy.

    Interest Rates

    To estimate the effects of H.R. 1 on interest rates, CBO accounted for how monetary policy authorities would respond to the economic effects of H.R. 1 and how those economic effects would influence interest rates in the short term. The effects of H.R. 1 on interest rates in the long term would depend on the sensitivity of interest rates to changes in federal debt.

    Inflation

    To estimate the effects of H.R. 1 on inflation, CBO accounted for how the bill would affect actual and potential GDP. When a policy increases GDP relative to potential GDP, it places upward pressure on prices. The sensitivity of prices (and thus inflation) to the gap between actual and potential GDP would depend on the state of the economy when the policy was implemented.

    Uncertainty

    CBO’s estimates of the macroeconomic effects of H.R. 1 are uncertain, in part because the underlying cost estimates of the bill before accounting for changes in the economy are uncertain. If, for example, provisions are implemented differently from the assumptions in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates, then that would affect the budgetary effects of H.R. 1, which would affect CBO’s assessment of the bill’s macroeconomic effects. There is also uncertainty surrounding how people and businesses would respond to the provisions of H.R. 1. If people and businesses respond differently than CBO projects, then the economic implications of the bill would be different.

    Notes

    The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, stipulates that revenue estimates provided by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) will be the official estimates for all tax legislation considered by the Congress. Therefore, CBO incorporates those estimates into its cost estimates of the effects of legislation. The estimates for the revenue provisions of the legislation were provided by JCT.

    Unless this estimate indicates otherwise, all years referred to are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to September 30 and are designated by the calendar year in which they end. Numbers in the text may not add up to totals because of rounding.

    This cost estimate is the result of work by analysts across CBO as well as the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

    Estimate Reviewed By

    Devrim Demirel 
    Director of Macroeconomic Analysis

    John McClelland
    Director of Tax Analysis

    Chad Chirico 
    Director of Budget Analysis

    Jeffrey Kling
    Research Director

    Mark Hadley
    Deputy Director

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images

    After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.

    Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.

    This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.

    “Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.

    The threat of domestic violence and terrorism is high in the United States – especially the danger posed by white power extremists, many of whom believe white people are being “replaced” by people of color.

    I am a scholar of political violence and extremism and wrote about these beliefs in a 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US.” I think it’s important to understand the lessons that can be learned from events such as the recent Minnesota shootings.

    After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.

    Vance Boelter is seen in his booking photo on June 16, 2025, in Green Isle, Minn.
    Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

    The lone wolf extremist myth is dangerous

    FBI Director Christopher Wray said in August 2022 that the nation’s top threat comes from far-right extremist “lone actors” – who, he explained, work alone, instead of “as part of a large group.”

    Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.

    I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.

    Not a new trend

    Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.

    This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.

    In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.

    The same is true of Payton Gendron, who shot and killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in 2022, and Patrick Crusius, who killed 23 people in a racist attack targeting Latino shoppers at a Walmart in Texas in 2019.

    These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.

    “He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.

    Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

    Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

    The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.

    After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”

    The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

    Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019.
    Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

    Tracing the lone wolf mythology

    How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?

    Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.

    After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.

    The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.

    And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”

    The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.

    By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.

    The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.

    Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 23, 2023.

    Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    – ref. Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves – https://theconversation.com/violent-extremists-like-the-minnesota-shooter-are-not-lone-wolves-259225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images

    After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.

    Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.

    This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.

    “Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.

    The threat of domestic violence and terrorism is high in the United States – especially the danger posed by white power extremists, many of whom believe white people are being “replaced” by people of color.

    I am a scholar of political violence and extremism and wrote about these beliefs in a 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US.” I think it’s important to understand the lessons that can be learned from events such as the recent Minnesota shootings.

    After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.

    Vance Boelter is seen in his booking photo on June 16, 2025, in Green Isle, Minn.
    Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

    The lone wolf extremist myth is dangerous

    FBI Director Christopher Wray said in August 2022 that the nation’s top threat comes from far-right extremist “lone actors” – who, he explained, work alone, instead of “as part of a large group.”

    Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.

    I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.

    Not a new trend

    Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.

    This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.

    In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.

    The same is true of Payton Gendron, who shot and killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in 2022, and Patrick Crusius, who killed 23 people in a racist attack targeting Latino shoppers at a Walmart in Texas in 2019.

    These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.

    “He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.

    Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

    Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

    The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.

    After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”

    The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

    Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019.
    Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

    Tracing the lone wolf mythology

    How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?

    Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.

    After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.

    The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.

    And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”

    The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.

    By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.

    The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.

    Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 23, 2023.

    Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    – ref. Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves – https://theconversation.com/violent-extremists-like-the-minnesota-shooter-are-not-lone-wolves-259225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Along with the ideals it expresses, the Declaration of Independence mourns for something people lost in 1776 − and now, too

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

    The committee assigned to draft the Declaration of Independence, from left: Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston and John Adams. Currier & Ives image, photo by MPI/Getty Images

    Right around the Fourth of July, Americans pay renewed attention to the country’s crucial founding document, the Declaration of Independence. Whether Republican or Democrat or independent, some will say – with reverence – that adherence to the values expressed in the declaration is what makes them American.

    President Barack Obama, in his second inaugural address, gave voice to this very conviction.

    “What binds this nation together,” he stated, “is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names.” What truly makes Americans American, he resolved, “is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago.”

    The declaration still stands today as a manifesto. There are its lofty, “self-evident” principles, of course: that “all men are created equal” and that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    But I’m a historian of the early republic, and I wish to remind you that the declaration doesn’t just go all pie in the sky. And it’s more than an academic paper waxing on and on about the fashionable philosophical doctrines of the 18th century – freedom and equality – or the coolest philosopher ever, John Locke.

    The declaration provides a realistic depiction of a wounded society, one shivering with fears and teetering on the brink of disaster.

    The declaration has been central to American identity; here, a 1942 poster, printed during World War II, reminds Americans of its history.
    Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

    Repeated injuries and usurpations

    On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress asked five of its members to prepare a text that would notify the British king and his Parliament of America’s firm intention to get a divorce.

    The drafting committee comprised Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and a man who had a stellar reputation as a gifted writer, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

    Jefferson didn’t waste time. He locked himself up in a rented room near the State House in Philadelphia, and within a couple of days he was ready to submit a draft to his four teammates for revision.

    The committee was smitten by the clarity and effectiveness of the document. Other than suggesting a few corrections, Jefferson’s colleagues were elated by the text.

    The Continental Congress promptly received the document, discussed it, made a handful of alterations, and in the late morning of July 4, 1776, adopted it.

    Late that night, Philadelphia printer John Dunlap was given the historic task of issuing the first copies of the final Declaration of Independence.

    In retrospect, all of this may sound like a tale of fearless heroes eager to break the chains of oppression and single-handedly affirm their boundless love of freedom.

    However, when Thomas Jefferson took the pen in his hand, he didn’t think of himself as a hero. Rather, looking ahead at the immediate future and the drama that would inexorably unfold, he felt overwhelmed. A war, pitting brethren against brethren, the Colonists against their mother country, had already started.

    The situation was tense and painful, because 18th-century Americans didn’t quite see themselves as Americans. They trusted they were active members of a powerful, expanding British Empire.

    What had begun as yet another crisis over Parliament’s right to tax its overseas possessions had quickly transformed into a turning point over whether the Colonies should become independent.

    As a consequence, readers of the declaration cannot escape the impression that this document carries a sense of reluctance, betrayal, fear and even sadness.

    We Colonists thought we were free, the logic of the declaration goes, but now we are waking up to the dismal realization that the king and the Parliament treat us like their personal slaves.

    Jefferson’s words appear to longingly express how wonderful it would be for “one people” not to be put in the condition to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” How desirable it would have been if a way to renew “the ties of our common kindred” could be found.

    Unfortunately, what Jefferson calls “repeated injuries and usurpations” have created enemies out of a common ancestry, thus stifling the “voice of justice and of consanguinity.”

    How not to grieve at these “injuries”? The king is guilty for “abolishing our most valuable Laws”; he has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us”; he has sent “Officers to harass our people”; he has obstructed “the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners”; and he has “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.”

    Americans didn’t seek a revolution, the declaration concludes, but Colonists must accept “the necessity” of a separation: “Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

    Painter N.C.Wyeth’s depiction of Thomas Jefferson writing the text of the Declaration of Independence.
    Bettman/Getty Images

    ‘Forget our former love for them’

    Americans today may believe that the Declaration of Independence belongs to them – which it does. The declaration is an American document.

    But to an even larger extent, it belongs to Thomas Jefferson. It’s a Jeffersonian document.

    One of the most consequential American philosophers, the author of the declaration poured into the text his theories of society and of human nature.

    For him, human beings should not live as isolated atoms in constant competition against each other. Jefferson was a communitarian, which means that he believed that the very happiness voiced in the declaration could occur only when individuals regard themselves as functional parts of a larger whole made of other human beings.

    The declaration was built upon the tenet that, as Jefferson would explain many years later, “Nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succour their distresses.”

    As a moral philosopher, Jefferson wasn’t perfect, obviously – and his views on race and slavery prove that. But the declaration puts forth the argument that the British king and the Parliament are also to blame for having transformed a united people, a people who used to love each other, into a mass of foreigners suspicious of each other.

    In Jefferson’s account, this king has carried out the supreme betrayal – like tyrannical powers often do. He has stabbed the Americans as well as the British. He has split them into antagonistic parties. And we Americans, as Jefferson wrote in a telling passage of the declaration that didn’t survive revisions, “must endeavor to forget our former love for them.”

    The American nation was born of the traumatic experience of an amputation. It’s a residual half of a former whole that one way or another managed to learn to become a whole again.

    But after 250 years, America appears once more a people who seem to have lost what binds them together. Those “political bands which have connected them with another” are being tested; “the ties of … common kindred” are frayed.

    Such words describe a time, centuries ago, of great uncertainty, fear and sadness. It seems America has arrived yet again at such a time.

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

    – ref. Along with the ideals it expresses, the Declaration of Independence mourns for something people lost in 1776 − and now, too – https://theconversation.com/along-with-the-ideals-it-expresses-the-declaration-of-independence-mourns-for-something-people-lost-in-1776-and-now-too-258529

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Feenstra Leads Legislation to Lower Broadband Costs for Rural Iowa Communities

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04)

    HULL, IOWA – Today, U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Hull) introduced the Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act to help construct broadband in rural Iowa.

    This legislation would require that the largest financial beneficiaries of the networks, also known as “edge providers” – such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Netflix – contribute their fair share toward the networks that are built and maintained by the Universal Service Fund (USF) and by consumers who own landlines throughout the country. 

    Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) is the co-lead of this legislation.

    “Access to high-speed internet is critical to our economic growth in rural communities. Families, farmers, and businesses across rural Iowa go to great lengths to collect and deploy the necessary funds to build reliable, affordable broadband. However, Big Tech companies use these networks once completed but rarely contribute their fair share towards the cost. It is completely unfair,” said Rep. Feenstra. “It’s why I introduced legislation to ensure that Big Tech companies contribute to the full cost of building high-speed broadband in rural Iowa. Connecting our schools, farms, businesses, homes, and hospitals to the internet is an important priority for me, and this bill will help achieve this mission more affordably and effectively.”

    “Strong broadband networks are vital to connect Americans to the internet and to each other,” said Rep. Leger Fernandez. This bipartisan bill will help sustain our rural broadband networks and make sure that the big corporations that profit from those networks also contribute to them. Let’s close the digital divide.”

    “A strong and sustainable Universal Service Fund is mission-critical to connecting rural America,” said Brandon Heiner, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at US Telecom – The Broadband Association. “Representative Feenstra’s proposal is a step toward modernizing the USF to meet the demands of today’s communications landscape. Congress should act with urgency to secure and strengthen this essential national commitment.”

    “WTA supports the Lowering Costs for Broadband Consumers Act and applauds Representatives Feenstra and Leger Fernadez for introducing this bipartisan legislation,” said Derrick Owens, WTA’s Senior Vice President of Government & Industry Affairs. “The Universal Service Fund is an important tool for ensuring rural residents and businesses have access to affordable broadband. This legislation provides the FCC the authority it needs to engage in needed modernization of USF to ensure that all businesses that profit from the broadband network support the construction, maintenance, and upgrades of the network. We look forward to working with Congress to make sure this modernization takes place.”

    “NTCA applauds the introduction of the Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act and thanks Representatives Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) and Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) for their leadership. This legislation would promote more predictable and stable funding to preserve and advance the statutory mission of universal service,” said Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer of NTCA. “As traditional telecommunications revenues decline, the assessment on the remaining consumers of such services increases, resulting in a disproportionate burden on those consumers even though they are not the most significant users of services or beneficiaries of underlying networks. Common-sense reforms like those directed by this legislation will shore up the foundation of universal service funding, spread contribution obligations more equitably among all of those that use and benefit from broadband networks, and ultimately help the low-income and rural consumers and schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities that depend on critical universal service programs.”

    “Rural Americans deserve access to affordable, high-quality broadband, and that requires a USF contribution system that is both fair and sustainable. For too long, the burden of supporting our nation’s broadband infrastructure has fallen disproportionately on consumers and small and rural providers, including RWA members. This legislation appropriately requires that the largest beneficiaries of our digital economy—edge providers and big tech companies—pay their fair share,” said Carri Bennet, General Counsel for the Rural Wireless Association.

    “On behalf of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association, I need to thank Congressman Feenstra and Congresswoman Leger Fernandez for their introduction of the Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act of 2025. It is gratifying to know that they are trying to reduce the financial burden that Native American families have every day. Rural broadband in the remote parts of our country is very expensive. We do expect those that financially benefit from the networks pay something towards the construction and operation of our networks to help reduce that burden. Therefore, NTTA endorses this federal bill,” said Godfrey Enjady, President of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed, Whitehouse & Colleagues Mark 13 Years of DACA & Urge Trump Administration to Resume Processing Applications for ‘Dreamers’

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Marking the 13th anniversary of the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Today, U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse and their Senate colleagues urged U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing applications for the DACA program following the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to narrow the nationwide injunction to Texas.

    Currently, more than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.  Since DACA was established on June 15, 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA and the program has allowed young people to contribute their talents to the United States and their communities.  DACA recipients contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    Reed and Whitehouse support legislation to offer legal pathways for Dreamers. 

    In the letter to USCIS Acting Director Alfonso-Royals, the 41 U.S. Senators began: “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”

    “Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately,” the senators continued.

    The senators further elaborated on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit the injunction, writing, “Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.”

    “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible,” the senators concluded.

    In addition to Reed and Whitehouse, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    Full text of the letter follows:

    Dear Acting Director Alfonso-Royals:

    Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States. Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.

    In 2001, the Dream Act was introduced on a bipartisan basis to provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children but remained vulnerable to deportation. Since that time, the Dream Act has been introduced in every Congress. It has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with bipartisan majority votes, but no version has yet to be signed into law. In response to bipartisan pressure to protect Dreamers until Congress acted, the Obama Administration implemented DACA through a policy memorandum in 2012.

    Since 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA. Many DACA recipients report that deferred action—and the accompanying employment authorization —allowed them to apply for their first job or move to a higher-paying position more commensurate with their skills. Since its establishment, DACA recipients have contributed an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power, and $40 billion dollars in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. Over 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas. Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.

    We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed, Whitehouse & Colleagues Mark 13 Years of DACA & Urge Trump Administration to Resume Processing Applications for ‘Dreamers’

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Marking the 13th anniversary of the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Today, U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse and their Senate colleagues urged U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing applications for the DACA program following the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to narrow the nationwide injunction to Texas.

    Currently, more than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.  Since DACA was established on June 15, 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA and the program has allowed young people to contribute their talents to the United States and their communities.  DACA recipients contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    Reed and Whitehouse support legislation to offer legal pathways for Dreamers. 

    In the letter to USCIS Acting Director Alfonso-Royals, the 41 U.S. Senators began: “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”

    “Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately,” the senators continued.

    The senators further elaborated on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit the injunction, writing, “Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.”

    “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible,” the senators concluded.

    In addition to Reed and Whitehouse, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    Full text of the letter follows:

    Dear Acting Director Alfonso-Royals:

    Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States. Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.

    In 2001, the Dream Act was introduced on a bipartisan basis to provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children but remained vulnerable to deportation. Since that time, the Dream Act has been introduced in every Congress. It has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with bipartisan majority votes, but no version has yet to be signed into law. In response to bipartisan pressure to protect Dreamers until Congress acted, the Obama Administration implemented DACA through a policy memorandum in 2012.

    Since 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA. Many DACA recipients report that deferred action—and the accompanying employment authorization —allowed them to apply for their first job or move to a higher-paying position more commensurate with their skills. Since its establishment, DACA recipients have contributed an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power, and $40 billion dollars in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. Over 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas. Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.

    We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: U.S. Senate Approves Reed’s Bill to Reign in Abusive Mortgage “Trigger Leads” & Cut Down on Unwanted Spam Calls, Texts and Emails

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Buying or refinancing a home can be a fraught and stressful experience, and now the U.S. Senate is one step closer to making it a little easier by preventing your personal information from being sold and triggering a title wave of unsolicited spam credit offers.

    In an effort to give prospective homebuyers more control over their personal information and crackdown on unfair and deceptive lending practices, the U.S. Senate passed the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (S.1467) to dramatically reduce spam calls, texts, and emails from irresponsible players in the mortgage industry.

    The bipartisan bill, led by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), would halt the misuse of mortgage “trigger leads” – which occur when a consumer’s credit inquiry “triggers” the sale of their information to third-party lenders and businesses.  When a mortgage lender runs a credit check during the process to buy a home, it appears on the consumer’s credit report. The major credit reporting bureaus (including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) may then sell that information to other lenders or brokers, which then use it to contact consumers unprompted, often in a predatory manner, to solicit business.

    According to the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) president Jim Nabors: “It is not unusual for bank customers to receive 100+ misleading texts, phone calls and emails within the first 24 hours of applying for a mortgage and the passage of this bill will go a long way in relieving this burden to homebuyers.”

    Prospective homebuyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their consent.

    The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act would limit the ability of credit reporting bureaus to sell trigger leads to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage. This legislation would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to include specific restrictions on the use of trigger leads in the residential mortgage lending space, with very limited exceptions for institutions that a consumer currently knows and trusts.

    “Buying a home is already a complex and stressful process. Consumers should not have their private information sold to spammers who then target them with unsolicited, predatory offers.  Passing this bill is a smart, bipartisan solution to halt abusive trigger leads,” said Senator Reed, a senior member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. “This is a rare data privacy win.  The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will put consumers back in the driver’s seat and help cut down on the spam.  It will help reduce predatory practices and provide much needed relief from unwanted industry calls, texts, and emails.”

    “Unsolicited phone calls caused by trigger leads have become an intolerable nuisance to many Tennesseans,” said Senator Hagerty. “I’m pleased that the Senate has passed this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will protect Americans’ data and help reduce endless spam calls.”

    This bill would prohibit credit reporting bureaus from selling a trigger lead unless a mortgage broker or lender certifies to the bureau that they already have a deep financial relationship with the consumer, such as an existing mortgage loan or a deposit account.  Trigger leads would also be permitted if a consumer affirmatively opts in to receiving them.

    There are currently eight states — Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin – that restrict the use of trigger leads in some fashion, and Idaho (new law effective July 2025) and Arkansas (new law effective August 2025) have also recently passed trigger lead laws that will soon take effect.

    Cosponsors in the U.S. Senate include Senators: Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tom Tillis (R-NC), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tina Smith (D-MN), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), James E. Risch (R-ID), Angus King (I-ME), Tommy Tuberville, Tommy (R-AL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Gary Peters (D-MI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Ed Markey (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Jim Banks (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Hoeven (R-ND), Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Rick Scott (R-FL).

    At the federal level, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act is supported by a broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and financial trades, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Broker Action Coalition, Community Home Lenders of America, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, and others.

    Identical bipartisan legislation (H.R.2808) has been introduced in the House by Congressman John Rose (R-TN-06) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15) and has support from over 80 cosponsors.  On June 10 it was unanimously advanced by the House Financial Services Committee to the full House for debate and consideration.  The bill must be approved by both chambers of Congress before it can be sent to the president’s desk to be signed into law.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: U.S. Senate Approves Reed’s Bill to Reign in Abusive Mortgage “Trigger Leads” & Cut Down on Unwanted Spam Calls, Texts and Emails

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Buying or refinancing a home can be a fraught and stressful experience, and now the U.S. Senate is one step closer to making it a little easier by preventing your personal information from being sold and triggering a title wave of unsolicited spam credit offers.

    In an effort to give prospective homebuyers more control over their personal information and crackdown on unfair and deceptive lending practices, the U.S. Senate passed the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (S.1467) to dramatically reduce spam calls, texts, and emails from irresponsible players in the mortgage industry.

    The bipartisan bill, led by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), would halt the misuse of mortgage “trigger leads” – which occur when a consumer’s credit inquiry “triggers” the sale of their information to third-party lenders and businesses.  When a mortgage lender runs a credit check during the process to buy a home, it appears on the consumer’s credit report. The major credit reporting bureaus (including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) may then sell that information to other lenders or brokers, which then use it to contact consumers unprompted, often in a predatory manner, to solicit business.

    According to the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) president Jim Nabors: “It is not unusual for bank customers to receive 100+ misleading texts, phone calls and emails within the first 24 hours of applying for a mortgage and the passage of this bill will go a long way in relieving this burden to homebuyers.”

    Prospective homebuyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their consent.

    The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act would limit the ability of credit reporting bureaus to sell trigger leads to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage. This legislation would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to include specific restrictions on the use of trigger leads in the residential mortgage lending space, with very limited exceptions for institutions that a consumer currently knows and trusts.

    “Buying a home is already a complex and stressful process. Consumers should not have their private information sold to spammers who then target them with unsolicited, predatory offers.  Passing this bill is a smart, bipartisan solution to halt abusive trigger leads,” said Senator Reed, a senior member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. “This is a rare data privacy win.  The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will put consumers back in the driver’s seat and help cut down on the spam.  It will help reduce predatory practices and provide much needed relief from unwanted industry calls, texts, and emails.”

    “Unsolicited phone calls caused by trigger leads have become an intolerable nuisance to many Tennesseans,” said Senator Hagerty. “I’m pleased that the Senate has passed this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will protect Americans’ data and help reduce endless spam calls.”

    This bill would prohibit credit reporting bureaus from selling a trigger lead unless a mortgage broker or lender certifies to the bureau that they already have a deep financial relationship with the consumer, such as an existing mortgage loan or a deposit account.  Trigger leads would also be permitted if a consumer affirmatively opts in to receiving them.

    There are currently eight states — Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin – that restrict the use of trigger leads in some fashion, and Idaho (new law effective July 2025) and Arkansas (new law effective August 2025) have also recently passed trigger lead laws that will soon take effect.

    Cosponsors in the U.S. Senate include Senators: Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tom Tillis (R-NC), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tina Smith (D-MN), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), James E. Risch (R-ID), Angus King (I-ME), Tommy Tuberville, Tommy (R-AL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Gary Peters (D-MI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Ed Markey (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Jim Banks (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Hoeven (R-ND), Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Rick Scott (R-FL).

    At the federal level, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act is supported by a broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and financial trades, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Broker Action Coalition, Community Home Lenders of America, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, and others.

    Identical bipartisan legislation (H.R.2808) has been introduced in the House by Congressman John Rose (R-TN-06) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15) and has support from over 80 cosponsors.  On June 10 it was unanimously advanced by the House Financial Services Committee to the full House for debate and consideration.  The bill must be approved by both chambers of Congress before it can be sent to the president’s desk to be signed into law.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Heinrich, Luján, Senate Democrats Press Trump Administration to Resume Processing DACA Applications

    US Senate News:

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

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) joined U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to urge the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, following a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that limited a nationwide injunction to Texas.

    The senators began by highlighting the popular support for providing Dreamers a pathway to citizenship, writing:“Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”

    The senators continued by making their request, writing:“Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.”

    Sunday, June 15 marked the thirteenth anniversary of President Obama establishing the DACA program via policy memorandum in 2012. Since then, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA, empowering recipients to bolster their careers and contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. More than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas.

    The senators further elaborated on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit the injunction, writing: “Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.”

    The senators concluded: “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.”

    The letter is led by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Alongside Heinrich and Luján, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

    The text of the letter is here and below:

    Dear Acting Director Alfonso-Royals:

    Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States. Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.

    In 2001, the Dream Act was introduced on a bipartisan basis to provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children but remained vulnerable to deportation. Since that time, the Dream Act has been introduced in every Congress. It has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with bipartisan majority votes, but no version has yet to be signed into law. In response to bipartisan pressure to protect Dreamers until Congress acted, the Obama Administration implemented DACA through a policy memorandum in 2012.

    Since 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA. Many DACA recipients report that deferred action—and the accompanying employment authorization — allowed them to apply for their first job or move to a higher-paying position more commensurate with their skills. Since its establishment, DACA recipients have contributed an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power, and $40 billion dollars in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. Over 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas. Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.

    We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Heinrich, Luján, Senate Democrats Demand Trump Withdraw Military Forces from Los Angeles

    US Senate News:

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

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) joined U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty troops to American cities without the request of state or local leaders.

    The letter comes after Trump’s unprecedented move to federalize and deploy the California National Guard without the consent of the California Governor and mobilize U.S. Marine Corps elements, deploying approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest created by the President’s indiscriminate and intentionally inflammatory immigration enforcement raids across the region. The first 200 Marines arrived at the Los Angeles Federal Building on Friday, marking the first time in over 30 years that the Marines have been deployed in the United States.

    Trump deployed these military personnel without the request or support of Governor Gavin Newsom, manufacturing a crisis and repeatedly escalating the conflict in order to create a spectacle. The federalizing of California’s National Guard marked the first time the Guard had been deployed without a Governor’s consent since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights protesters in Selma.

    “We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders,” wrote Heinrich, Luján, Padilla, and the entire Democratic Senate Caucus. “This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.”

    The senators slammed the deployment of military personnel as an abuse of power that undermines state and local leadership, interferes with critical law enforcement operations, and wastes military resources and taxpayer dollars. They also expressed concern for the dangerous precedent Trump’s misguided deployment of military forces could set for mobilizing military personnel to other cities across the country.

    “For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order,” continued the senators. “Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

    “We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor,” concluded the senators. “Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.”

    The Trump Administration has repeatedly utilized excessive force and aggressive tactics in its immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles and across the country. This pattern of unnecessary violence was evident on Thursday when Padilla was forcibly removed from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s press conference,thrown to the ground, and handcuffed after simply trying to ask a question.

    The legality of Trump’s federalizing of California’s National Guard without the Governor’s consent is currently being disputed in federal court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a stay to pause a lower court’s ruling, which had returned command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.

    The district court ruled that the President did not follow the statutorily mandated procedure necessary to deploy the National Guard and ordered him to return control of the Guard to California. The Court ruled that Trump violated the 10th Amendment and 10 USC § 12406, the provision that authorizes the President to federalize the Guard in the event of insurrection or rebellion. The court held that California was also likely to prevail on the merits of its suit — there was no rebellion or insurrection, and local, county, and state law enforcement were fully capable of enforcing the law.

    “At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,” wrote the court.

    “We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited to his authority,” the court continued.“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It’s not that a leader can simply say something, and it becomes it.”

    In addition to Heinrich, Luján, and Padilla, the letter to President Trump was signed by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, including Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),  John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

    Full text of the letter is available here and below:

    Dear President Trump,

    We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders. This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.

    For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order. Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    We are particularly concerned by the precedent that this ill-conceived deployment of military personnel to Los Angeles sets for other cities and states. Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guards when operating within state borders. As Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said last year when serving as Governor of South Dakota, “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”

    We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor. Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Middletown Finishes Downtown Revitalization Initiative Projects

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced the completion of Mt. Olive Senior Manor, an affordable housing development for seniors that builds on the State’s historic $50 million investment in Buffalo’s East Side. Developed in partnership between Mt. Olive Development Corporation and People Inc., the new building creates 65 apartments for adults aged 55 and older, including 20 apartments with supportive services for individuals struggling with homelessness, on an underutilized parcel adjacent to the Mt. Olive Baptist Church. Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, New York State Homes and Community Renewal has financed more than 11,000 affordable homes in Erie County. Mt. Olive Senior Manor continues this effort and complements Governor Hochul’s $25 billion five-year housing plan, which is on track to create or preserve 100,000 affordable homes statewide.

    “Through strong partnerships with faith-based organizations like Mt. Olive Baptist Church, we are transforming underutilized spaces into vibrant, affordable homes for New York’s seniors,” Governor Hochul said. “Mt. Olive Senior Manor reflects our commitment to delivering safe, supportive housing that meets the unique needs of the East Side’s residents, advancing our bold vision to create and preserve 100,000 affordable homes across New York.”

    The three-story development is constructed on land next door to the Mt. Olive Baptist Church that has undergone brownfield remediation. All apartments are affordable to households earning up to 50 percent of the Area Median Income.

    Twenty apartments are set aside for seniors in need of supportive services to live independently. Services and rental subsidies are funded by the Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative and administered by the New York State Department of Health. The service provider is People Inc.

    Residential amenities include a community room with kitchen, laundry facilities, bicycle storage area, management office, support service offices, multipurpose room, a lounge area, and an enclosed courtyard with walkable space and a patio. To support residents as they age, the building’s design includes features such as grab bars, low-reach shelving and cabinets, lever-style door handles, under cabinet lighting, and zero transition showers.

    The development was designed to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Multifamily New Construction – Energy Rating Index compliance path. The highly energy efficient, all-electric development features include electric vehicle charging stations, Energy Star appliances and lighting, low flow plumbing fixtures, and high efficiency mechanical equipment.

    State financing for Mt. Olive Senior Manor includes support from HCR’s Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program that generated more than $13 million in equity, as well as $3.6 million in subsidy. The New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance is providing $4 million through the Homeless Housing and Assistance Program. Additionally, the site participated in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s successful Brownfield Cleanup Program and became eligible for $3.6 million in tax credits administered by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. The Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency awarded $2 million in HOME funds. NYSERDA’s New Construction – Housing Program contributed $260,000 in incentives.

    New York State Homes and Community Renewal Commissioner RuthAnne Visnauskas said, “Mt. Olive Senior Manor exemplifies New York State’s commitment to creating affordable, supportive housing, including in partnership with faith-based organizations, that uplifts residents and strengthens communities like East Buffalo. This $27 million investment not only provides safe, modern homes and vital services that seniors deserve, but allows 65 households to stay and thrive in the community they love. Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, we will continue to create more housing opportunities for New Yorkers of every age and income level.”

    New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Commissioner Barbara C. Guinn said, “The 20 supportive housing units created as part of this development will help older adults in Erie County who have experienced homelessness by providing a safe, stable home and access to support services that will enable them to age in place. Congratulations to Mt. Olive Baptist Church, People Inc., and all of our state and local partners on the successful completion of Mt. Olive Senior Manor.”

    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Amanda Lefton said, “Everyone should have access to environmentally safe and affordable housing. For more than two decades, the State’s Brownfield Cleanup Program has played a critical role in cleaning up formerly contaminated sites, returning them to productive use, and supporting local revitalization efforts. DEC is proud to oversee this critical program and its contribution to achieving Governor Hochul’s affordable housing goals in communities like Buffalo, including the Mt. Olive Senior Housing Development, while supporting DEC’s mission to protect public health and the environment for all.”

    NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen M. Harris said, “Projects like Mt. Olive Senior Manor are helping shape a cleaner, more modern future for every New Yorker. Integrating the latest clean energy technology into affordable housing not only provides access to healthier, more comfortable living spaces for Western New York’s older adults, but helps improve the quality of life for many living in a historically underserved community.”

    State Senator April N. M. Baskin said, “This type of collaboration is meaningful on many levels: it’s a successful partnership between Mt. Olive and the leading human services agency in our region, People Inc.. This project also reimagines an underutilized parcel, turning it into a beautiful space benefiting our older East Side residents. Mt. Olive Baptist Manor is a safe and affordable place to call home, enabling our elders to live their best life in a way they surely deserve.”

    Erie County Legislator St. Jean Tard said, “It is an honor to celebrate the opening of Mt. Olive Senior Manor, a development that brings both hope and stability to our community. This project represents more than new construction—it’s a commitment to the well-being of our seniors, especially those who have faced the hardships of homelessness. Transforming a long-vacant site into a place of safety, care, and opportunity is a powerful reflection of what can be achieved through meaningful collaboration. I extend my sincere thanks to Mt. Olive Development Corp., People Inc., and all the partners who brought this vision to life.”

    Buffalo Common Council Member Zeneta Everhart said, “The newly constructed Mt. Olive Senior Manor located in the Masten District is an essential facility to meet the needs of our seniors and people struggling with homelessness. Thanks to major investments from the state and the Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency, what was once a vacant brownfield is now a great and affordable home for dozens of our older neighbors. I am grateful to Governor Hochul and the New York State Homes and Community Renewal for investing in our community and prioritizing the needs of vulnerable residents.”

    People Inc. President and CEO Anne McCaffrey said, “We are extremely proud to join Mt. Olive Development Corp., federal, state and local government officials in unveiling this impactful housing complex,” said Anne McCaffrey, People Inc. president and CEO. “We are providing more than just new housing. We are creating life-changing opportunities for living that are invigorating communities and meeting a critical regional need. Mt. Olive Senor Manor will help people live their best lives, which is central to People Inc.’s mission and vision for the communities we serve.”

    Governor Hochul’s Housing Agenda

    Governor Hochul is dedicated to addressing New York’s housing crisis and making the State more affordable and more livable for all New Yorkers. As part of the FY25 Enacted Budget, the Governor secured a landmark agreement to increase New York’s housing supply through new tax incentives, capital funding, and new protections for renters and homeowners. Building on this commitment, the FY26 Enacted Budget includes more than $1.5 billion in new State funding for housing, a Housing Access Voucher pilot program, and new policies to improve affordability for tenants and homebuyers. These measures complement the Governor’s five-year, $25 billion Housing Plan, included in the FY23 Enacted Budget, to create or preserve 100,000 affordable homes statewide, including 10,000 with support services for vulnerable populations, plus the electrification of an additional 50,000 homes. More than 60,000 homes have been created or preserved to date.

    The FY25 and FY26 Enacted Budgets also strengthened the Governor’s Pro-Housing Community Program — which allows certified localities exclusive access to up to $750 million in discretionary State funding. Currently, more than 300 communities have received Pro Housing certification, including Buffalo.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration of the Government of Spain has announced an investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration of the Government of Spain has announced an investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia

    The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration announced its participation in Quantix Edge Security through the Spanish Society for Technological Transformation (SETT), alongside Murcia-based companies OdinS and TProtege, Swiss-based company WISeKey, and France-based company SEALSQ

    Geneva, Switzerland, June 17, 2025 – WISeKey International Holding Ltd (“WISeKey”) (SIX: WIHN, NASDAQ: WKEY), a leading global cybersecurity, blockchain, and IoT company, today announces that the Government of Spain has announced its investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia.   WISeKey expects to issue a press-release detailing the project shortly.

    A free translation of the Spanish language announcement by the Spanish Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration is set forth below.

    “The Council of Ministers announced today, the launch of Quantix, an ambitious public-private joint venture with a total investment of €40M. The venture includes OdinS, a spin-off from the University of Murcia, Murcia-based TProtege, and Switzerland-based WISeKey and France-based SEALSQ, both listed on NASDAQ. Quantix will develop a Semiconductor Design and Personalization Center in the Region of Murcia with advanced capabilities in cybersecurity, post-quantum technology, AI, and RISC-V systems.

    The investment, driven by the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration, exceeds €19.6 million and will be managed through SETT (Spanish Society for Technological Transformation), a recently established public entity created by the Government of Spain to invest in and support strategic and emerging projects that advance Spain’s technological transformation.

    This project, which began gaining public traction in February 2024, has now culminated with the approval of the Spanish Government’s financial backing. Quantix represents a strategic international public-private alliance aligned with the European Union’s digital transformation and technological sovereignty plans, addressing the critical challenge of cybersecurity in an ultra-connected world.

    Quantix projects the creation of 40 jobs in the first two years, 70 in the third year, and 152 by the fifth year, with a goal of reaching 250 employees by the eighth year. The initiative aims to foster high-quality employment, research, and technology in the Region of Murcia, with a plan to attract both regional and international talent.

    The establishment of Quantix Edge Security will centralize part of the value chain in a single location in the Region of Murcia, reducing reliance on non-European suppliers for microchip design and manufacturing.

    Due to cybersecurity regulations being standardized by national agencies, Quantix’s target market focuses on post-quantum-resistant products, which, by 2030, will be essential for governmental applications such as passports and defense, as well as sensitive private-sector applications.

    This project has been supported from its inception by María González Veracruz in her various roles, both at the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures and currently at the Secretary of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence. She has repeatedly emphasized the importance of aligning this project with the financial instruments of the Strategic Project for Economic Recovery and Transformation in Microelectronics and Semiconductors (PERTE Chip), promoted by the Government of Spain.

    José Trigueros, founder and CEO of OdinS and TProtege, celebrates the launch of Quantix, an ambitious project that aims to position the Region of Murcia as a benchmark for innovation, microelectronics, and technological sovereignty, establishing the region as a new international hub for the development of secure microchips. This will lead the transition toward a resilient digital ecosystem that minimizes external dependencies in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

    Carlos Moreira, Founder and CEO of WISeKey and SEALSQ, stated: “I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Government of Spain and the Region of Murcia for this ambitious and strategic initiative, which not only strengthens national cybersecurity capabilities but also positions the region as a European leader in the development of key technologies such as post-quantum semiconductors.”

    Both leaders agree that the challenge ahead is immense, but so is the positive impact they aim to achieve. “We will create jobs, attract talent, develop cutting-edge technology, and place Murcia and Spain on the European map for semiconductors and cybersecurity,” they affirmed.

    Collaborations with research centers, technology hubs, and regional universities, particularly the University of Murcia (UMU), which has extensive experience in cybersecurity and has participated in numerous security projects over the past two decades, strengthen the scientific capacity of the proposed ecosystem.

    SEALSQ and WISeKey bring robust international expertise in cybersecurity and post-quantum semiconductor projects, developing advanced solutions for strategic sectors such as defense, healthcare, IoT, and aerospace. SEALSQ designs quantum-resistant microcontrollers and ASICs, integrating NIST-standard post-quantum algorithms such as Kyber, Dilithium, and Falcon, and collaborates with excellence centers like Mines Saint-Étienne in France. It is one of the few companies worldwide producing semiconductors specifically designed to withstand quantum threats, with its technologies embedded in over 1.75 billion devices globally. WISeKey complements this capability with its global digital identity and PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) infrastructure, including post-quantum trust roots, secure electronic voting systems, IoT devices, and certified blockchain platforms. Together, both companies have created a comprehensive and sovereign digital security ecosystem capable of protecting critical infrastructure against emerging quantum threats, offering end-to-end solutions from chip to cloud, including authentication, encryption, identity, and data protection.

    It is worth noting that OdinS, alongside WISeKey International Holding and SEALSQ, is involved in various international initiatives, such as European (ETSI EN 303 645) and U.S. (NIST IR 8425) regulations, which mandate digital identity for connected devices, as well as IoT lifecycle security management systems and certification processes for system security.

    The latest projects by OdinS in RISC-V, SEALSQ in post-quantum chips, and WISeKey in secure elements and trust roots will enhance technological and commercial synergies, combining two decades of expertise in IoT and cybersecurity.

    About Odin Solutions

    Odin Solutions (OdinS), founded in June 2014, is accredited as an innovative ICT company (EIBT) by MINECO and ANCES. OdinS specializes in IPv6 Internet of Things, Big Data, and Security. Its team has extensive experience and strong research, innovation, and technological development capabilities in integrated IoT systems and Big Data platforms for water/energy efficiency, security, and remote infrastructure management. OdinS holds several patents in monitoring and telecontrol systems. The company offers open, flexible, and interoperable products capable of connecting infrastructures and mobile platforms for Smart Cities, infrastructure, defense, and Smart Agriculture. Since its inception, OdinS has focused on IoT system security certification solutions and, more recently, on developing RISC-V-based systems, a cutting-edge European technology for open systems aligned with the new requirements set by European initiatives such as NIS2 and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA).

    OdinS’s multidisciplinary and entrepreneurial team works daily to address the challenges of an increasingly connected and technological society. OdinS is a member of the International IoT Forum and AIOTI (Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation) and actively participates in standardization working groups on Smart Cities, Architectures, and Standards. Specifically, OdinS collaborates with ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) in the ISG CIM (Cross-Sector Context Information Management) industry standardization group to design interoperable interfaces between IoT devices and Big Data platforms. OdinS views collaborative R&D projects as the best investment for achieving more competitive products and solutions. For more information, visit www.odins.es.

    About TProtege

    TProtege has a significant regional presence in the security and control systems market, with a strong focus on applying the latest technologies to deliver tailored solutions and superior customer service. It aspires to be a benchmark for integrated ICT solutions in the audiovisual sector, particularly in security and control. TProtege is a leader in technology-based systems, offering audiovisual engineering, surveillance, environmental monitoring, access control, and logistics security services. For more information, visit www.tprotege.es.”

    About SEALSQ:
    SEALSQ is a leading innovator in Post-Quantum Technology hardware and software solutions. Our technology seamlessly integrates Semiconductors, PKI (Public Key Infrastructure), and Provisioning Services, with a strategic emphasis on developing state-of-the-art Quantum Resistant Cryptography and Semiconductors designed to address the urgent security challenges posed by quantum computing. As quantum computers advance, traditional cryptographic methods like RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) are increasingly vulnerable.

    SEALSQ is pioneering the development of Post-Quantum Semiconductors that provide robust, future-proof protection for sensitive data across a wide range of applications, including Multi-Factor Authentication tokens, Smart Energy, Medical and Healthcare Systems, Defense, IT Network Infrastructure, Automotive, and Industrial Automation and Control Systems. By embedding Post-Quantum Cryptography into our semiconductor solutions, SEALSQ ensures that organizations stay protected against quantum threats. Our products are engineered to safeguard critical systems, enhancing resilience and security across diverse industries.

    For more information on our Post-Quantum Semiconductors and security solutions, please visit www.sealsq.com.

    About WISeKey

    WISeKey International Holding Ltd (“WISeKey”, SIX: WIHN; Nasdaq: WKEY) is a global leader in cybersecurity, digital identity, and IoT solutions platform. It operates as a Swiss-based holding company through several operational subsidiaries, each dedicated to specific aspects of its technology portfolio. The subsidiaries include (i) SEALSQ Corp (Nasdaq: LAES), which focuses on semiconductors, PKI, and post-quantum technology products, (ii) WISeKey SA which specializes in RoT and PKI solutions for secure authentication and identification in IoT, Blockchain, and AI, (iii) WISeSat AG which focuses on space technology for secure satellite communication, specifically for IoT applications, (iv) WISe.ART Corp which focuses on trusted blockchain NFTs and operates the WISe.ART marketplace for secure NFT transactions, and (v) SEALCOIN AG which focuses on decentralized physical internet with DePIN technology and house the development of the SEALCOIN platform.

    Each subsidiary contributes to WISeKey’s mission of securing the internet while focusing on their respective areas of research and expertise. Their technologies seamlessly integrate into the comprehensive WISeKey platform. WISeKey secures digital identity ecosystems for individuals and objects using Blockchain, AI, and IoT technologies. With over 1.6 billion microchips deployed across various IoT sectors, WISeKey plays a vital role in securing the Internet of Everything. The company’s semiconductors generate valuable Big Data that, when analyzed with AI, enable predictive equipment failure prevention. Trusted by the OISTE/WISeKey cryptographic Root of Trust, WISeKey provides secure authentication and identification for IoT, Blockchain, and AI applications. The WISeKey Root of Trust ensures the integrity of online transactions between objects and people. For more information on WISeKey’s strategic direction and its subsidiary companies, please visit www.wisekey.com.

    Disclaimer
    This communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements concerning WISeKey International Holding Ltd and its business. Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of WISeKey International Holding Ltd to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. WISeKey International Holding Ltd is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, and it does not constitute an offering prospectus within the meaning of the Swiss Financial Services Act (“FinSA”), the FinSa’s predecessor legislation or advertising within the meaning of the FinSA. Investors must rely on their own evaluation of WISeKey and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is, or shall be relied on as, a promise or representation as to the future performance of WISeKey.

    Press and Investor Contacts

    WISeKey International Holding Ltd
    Company Contact: Carlos Moreira
    Chairman & CEO
    Tel: +41 22 594 3000
    info@wisekey.com     		 WISeKey Investor Relations (US) 
    The Equity Group Inc.
    Lena Cati
    Tel: +1 212 836-9611
    lcati@theequitygroup.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: This hurricane season Greenpeace USA helps deliver Uncle Sam’s disturbing message to America

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    Greenpeace USA deployed a banner at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters to assist in making Uncle Sam’s message to the country crystal clear: this hurricane season, you are on your own. It was in esponse to the Trump Administration’s recent gutting of federal emergency response capacity.
    © Tim Aubry / Greenpeace

    WASHINGTON, DC (June 17, 2025) –  Tuesday, Greenpeace USA deployed banners at FEMA headquarters to assist in making Uncle Sam’s message to the country crystal clear: this hurricane season, you are on your own. 

    Photos and videos are available here.

    In response to the Trump Administration’s recent gutting of federal emergency response capacity, Greenpeace USA Deputy Climate Director John Nöel said: 

    “At this point, it’s not even shocking, but it still bears repeating: the Trump Administration can’t just get rid of critical infrastructure to address natural disasters – and then declare hurricanes extinct. But that’s exactly what it’s trying to do. On the heels of NOAA (another agency being dismantled) saying this hurricane season could be especially intense – and possibly more deadly – The Trump White House now wants to scrap FEMA, the agency that could help Americans survive it. This agency has long served as a lifeline for communities recovering from natural disasters – but even prior to cuts, it was struggling to keep up with worsening disasters and an administration that’s been tying aid to political alignment. 

    “Without federal support, states will have to raise taxes on working people and businesses in order to fill budget gaps created by extreme weather. While Americans face increasingly deadly hurricanes and floods Trump is firing the staff from agencies that track and coordinate emergency response while carrying out Big Oil’s wishlist that slashes climate funding when communities need it most. This only ensures Americans pay with not just the cost of their lives, businesses, and homes, but also higher energy bills, disaster relief taxes, and skyrocketing insurance premiums.

    “As the Trump administration abandons its responsibility to protect Americans, it is time for governors to step up and make polluters, specifically oil and gas corporations, pay for the crisis they’ve created instead of your constituents.” 

    Contact: Madison Carter, Greenpeace USA National Press Secretary, [email protected]

    Greenpeace USA is part of a global network of independent campaigning organizations that use peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace USA is committed to transforming the country’s unjust social, environmental, and economic systems from the ground up to address the climate crisis, advance racial justice, and build an economy that puts people first. Learn more at www.greenpeace.org/usa.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Blue-Collar Wage Growth Sees Largest Increase in Nearly 60 Years Under Trump

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    In President Donald J. Trump’s first five months in office, real wages for hourly workers have seen their largest increase under any administration in nearly 60 years — and we’re just getting started with pro-growth, pro-prosperity policies that finally put America First.
    Blue-collar workers have seen real wages grow almost two percent in the first five months of President Trump’s second term — a stark contrast from the negative wage growth seen during the first five months of the Biden Administration.
    “The only other time it has been this high … was during President Trump’s first term,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in an interview with the New York Post.
    The New York Post notes: “Since Richard Nixon in 1969, Trump has been the only president to record positive growth for blue-collar workers in his first five months. He also achieved 1.3% in his first term … The recovery from a 1.7% decline recorded in Biden’s first five months, as inflation outpaced earnings, suggests a shift in economic conditions for this financially stressed segment of the workforce.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Blue-Collar Wage Growth Sees Largest Increase in Nearly 60 Years Under Trump

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    In President Donald J. Trump’s first five months in office, real wages for hourly workers have seen their largest increase under any administration in nearly 60 years — and we’re just getting started with pro-growth, pro-prosperity policies that finally put America First.
    Blue-collar workers have seen real wages grow almost two percent in the first five months of President Trump’s second term — a stark contrast from the negative wage growth seen during the first five months of the Biden Administration.
    “The only other time it has been this high … was during President Trump’s first term,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in an interview with the New York Post.
    The New York Post notes: “Since Richard Nixon in 1969, Trump has been the only president to record positive growth for blue-collar workers in his first five months. He also achieved 1.3% in his first term … The recovery from a 1.7% decline recorded in Biden’s first five months, as inflation outpaced earnings, suggests a shift in economic conditions for this financially stressed segment of the workforce.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: Implementing the General Terms of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    IMPLEMENTING A HISTORIC TRADE DEAL: Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order implementing American commitments under the General Terms of the United States-United Kingdom Economic Prosperity Deal.
    This historic trade deal provides American companies unprecedented access to British markets while bolstering U.S. national security.
    The deal will include billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially for beef, ethanol, and certain other American agricultural exports.
    The UK will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminate against American products, hurt the U.S. manufacturing base, and threaten our national security.
    The U.S. and UK will negotiate preferential treatment outcomes for UK pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients contingent on the findings of a Section 232 investigation.
    The U.S. and UK have also committed to adopting a structured, negotiated approach to addressing U.S. national security concerns regarding sectors that may be subject to future Section 232 investigations and UK compliance with certain supply chain security standards.
    This Executive Order addresses automobiles, aerospace, and steel and aluminum.
    For automobiles, the Order provides that the first 100,000 vehicles imported into the U.S. by UK car manufacturers each year will be subject to a total tariff rate of 10% (7.5% plus 2.5% most-favored-nation rate) and any additional imported vehicles each year will be subject to the automobile Section 232 tariff rate of 25%.
    Additionally, automotive parts that are products of the UK and are for use in UK vehicles will be subject to a total tariff rate of 10%.

    For aerospace, the Order provides that certain UK products will no longer be subject to tariffs, thus strengthening aerospace and aircraft manufacturing supply chains.
    For steel and aluminum articles and their derivatives, the Order provides that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the U.S. Trade Representative, will establish tariff-rate quotas for UK products consistent with the General Terms of the Economic Prosperity Deal and pursuant to certain principles outlined in the Order. Products outside those quotas or that do not meet certain requirements will remain subject to existing Section 232 tariffs.
    Today’s action strengthens our bilateral relationship with the UK and sets the tone for other trading partners to promote reciprocal trade with the United States.
    ADVANCING RECIPROCAL TRADE: This U.S.-UK trade deal will usher in a golden age of new opportunity for U.S. exporters and level the playing field for American producers.
    On April 2, 2025, Liberation Day, President Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all countries to address unfair trade practices that have contributed to America’s trade deficit in order to better protect American workers, manufacturers, and our national security. 
    In 2024, the U.S. total goods trade with the UK was an estimated $148 billion.
    The UK average applied agricultural tariff was 9.2%, while the U.S. average applied agricultural tariff (prior to April 2) was 5%.

    On April 18, President Trump had a call with Prime Minister Starmer to discuss our bilateral trade relationship.
    On May 8, President Trump and Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced this historic Economic Prosperity Deal.
    USHERING IN A NEW ERA OF PROSPERITY: Since Day One, President Trump has challenged the assumption that American workers and businesses must tolerate unfair trade practices that disadvantage our workers and businesses and contribute to our historic trade deficit.
    President Trump continues to advance the interests of the American people, enhancing market access for American exporters and lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers to protect our economic and national security.
    The Economic Prosperity Deal with the United Kingdom is a critical step toward promoting reciprocal trade with a key ally and partner.
    President Trump: “The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers.”
    “The UK will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products.”
    “This is now turning out to be, really, a great deal for both countries.”

    Prime Minister Starmer: “This is going to boost trade between and across our countries. It’s going to not only protect jobs, but create jobs, opening market access.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The Weimar triangle: how Germany’s new government could reinvigorate an important European security alliance

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Herring, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University

    Decisions made by German chancellor Friedrich Merz when he came to power in May indicate that a somewhat dormant regional partnership is about to take on new significance in Europe. Merz immediately travelled to Paris and Warsaw to meet Emmanuel Macron and Donald Tusk, suggesting the so-called Weimar triangle is a top priority for his government.

    Following Merz’s visit to Poland, Polish prime minister Tusk declared “a new beginning, perhaps the most important in the history of the last dozen or so years, in Polish-German relations”.

    If Tusk is right, the Weimar triangle – an alliance between France, Germany and Poland – will have a key role to play. The Weimar triangle was established in 1991 as a forum for the three countries to work together in the interest of European security. This involved integrating Poland into the EU, as well as providing another channel for Germany to pursue friendship and reconciliation with its neighbours.

    The Franco-German “special relationship” was already established, along with their shared reputation as Europe’s “motor”. But Poland’s inclusion was crucial. As a large, influential country in Central Europe, it was well placed to become a pillar of European security and a partner in European expansion following the collapse of Communist regimes.

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

    As well as being a smaller security forum in which Germany, France and Poland can find common ground on EU security and foreign policy, the Weimar triangle has at times taken on an active international role. During the 2014 Ukraine crisis, ministers from the three Weimar triangle countries took the lead and negotiated on behalf of the EU.

    However, the importance and effectiveness of the format has declined in recent years due to deteriorating relations between the French, German and Polish governments.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 elevated the significance of the Weimar triangle once again. But in the early days of the war, although all three governments condemned the invasion, Poland, Germany and France were far from being on the same page.

    Germany’s cautious response provoked criticism in Poland – and indeed in other Central European countries. Many in the region had long been sceptical of Germany’s Russia policy and had warned of Russian aggression, but did not feel taken seriously.

    While the Polish government was quick to commit significant military support to Ukraine, Germany, under former chancellor Olaf Scholz, soon gained a reputation for being overly cautious in the eyes of its more hawkish allies. This led the Polish government to begin turning to security alliances in Scandinavia and the Baltics.

    Meanwhile, Scholz’s hesitancy and orientation towards Washington for leadership was also met with frustration in France, where the idea of “European sovereignty” in security issues had more traction.

    When the new Merz government made it clear that it wanted to prioritise foreign policy and the Weimar triangle, there was a sense that things were about to change. It is still early days, but the rhetoric of all three Weimar triangle leaders signals a commitment to making the alliance finally deliver, as well as an awareness of earlier failures.

    New challenges in Poland

    It won’t be plain sailing from here though. The election of nationalist Karol Nawrocki as president in Poland in early June was a blow for those that support a new, strong Weimar triangle.

    Poland’s current government is a centrist coalition led by pro-European prime minister Donald Tusk, but the concern now is that Nawrocki will block pro-European legislation as his predecessor did, given that he has the support of the nationalist, Eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party. The PiS party (in government from 2015-2023) has a record of anti-German and anti-EU rhetoric.

    Nawrocki has not yet questioned Poland’s military aid to Ukraine but the Tusk government must now continue to balance pursuing its own more liberal agenda and more pro-German and pro-European approach with the alternative views that Nawrocki represents, and which are clearly backed by a significant portion of Polish voters.

    What next for the Weimar triangle?

    Given the centrality of the Weimar triangle countries in Europe and the EU, their alliance has consequences that go far beyond the bilateral and regional levels. With the ongoing war in Ukraine and the uncertain status of the US as a security partner since Donald Trump’s re-election, a strong and unified pillar at the centre of Europe would be an asset to the EU and European security.

    So far, the Weimar triangle has failed to deliver on the expectations attached to it, often due to domestic differences. However, it holds untapped potential. A divided Europe and EU is in the interest of Putin’s government, and is not the unified ally Ukraine needs.

    The Weimar triangle, in bringing together three key member states – crucially including from Central Europe – can both symbolically and practically strengthen European foreign and security policy.

    This will involve finding compromises to build a united front on security at the EU level, bringing issues and policies to the table, and strengthening understanding where security perspectives diverge. The positions and signals of France, Germany and Poland matter to other EU member states and to Ukraine. Joint efforts could have even more clout.

    Rachel Herring receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. The Weimar triangle: how Germany’s new government could reinvigorate an important European security alliance – https://theconversation.com/the-weimar-triangle-how-germanys-new-government-could-reinvigorate-an-important-european-security-alliance-257995

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Here We Are: how silence defines Stephen Sondheim’s last musical

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Macpherson, Reader in Vocal Theatres, University of Portsmouth

    In musical theatre lore, when emotion outgrows words, characters sing (and when emotion outgrows song, they dance). This idea – in various guises, configurations and subversions – has shaped musical theatre for the last eight decades. The expectation that in a musical, characters sing is deeply ingrained: songs move the story along, or suspend time to enlarge a moment of emotion.

    Songs give audiences a chance to connect and to thrill at the virtuosity – and vulnerability – on display. After all, the very term “musical theatre” gives us a clue to its priorities. What happens, then, when the singing stops?

    That is the question posed by Stephen Sondheim’s final musical, Here We Are, which premiered at The Shed in New York in 2023 (two years after his death at 91) and is now playing at The National Theatre in London till the end of June.

    Based on two surrealist films by Spanish auteur Luis Buñuel (1972’s The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and 1962’s The Exterminating Angel), act one sees a group of wealthy friends searching for a decent brunch.

    In act two, after finally eating in the dining room of an embassy building, they mysteriously find themselves trapped – along with the waitress and the butler – and unable to leave. Completed posthumously and written with playwright David Ives, the show does something radical: in its second act, the characters stop singing.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    That is not to say the show is not musical, and act two does include three brief moments of musical interlude rather than song. We might suggest this “songlessness” acts as a kind of silence; the characters speak, but as this is not a play, they should – as is expected of a musical – sing.

    Initially keeping up appearances, act one is full of group numbers and sung encounters, yet even here, Sondheim plays games with his audience. The main characters rarely get solo moments; instead, minor characters, including a waiter and a soldier, are given richly expressive songs.

    The usual power dynamics of musical theatre are inverted. Who gets to sing – and who does not – becomes central to the story. Director Joe Mantello has said that this approach was counterintuitive, even for Sondheim.

    By act two, the playfulness escalates. Suddenly, not even the piano in the embassy drawing room makes a sound. Silence here is not simply a gap to be filled – it becomes the point of the drama. Audiences are asked to sit with characters inured to privilege and trapped by their sudden helplessness.

    The absence of song draws attention to everything else: the dynamics and relationships, the constrained movement, the increasingly stilted small talk. Without the emotional release of song, these characters are confronted, confronting and exposed.

    Musical silence and space

    This seems a courageous move in a genre built around song – but in fact, there are many examples in musical theatre where characters who do not sing are nonetheless central. In West Side Story (1957) and Spring Awakening (2006), adults are silent while the youth give voice to generational difference.

    In The Drowsy Chaperone (1998), the central narrator talks but never sings. In more recent works like Maybe Happy Ending (2016), the silence of not singing is more comedic, with the main character Oliver’s best friend being a (silent) house plant named HwaBoon. But Here We Are takes the idea further. Why?

    One reason is dramatic. The characters are trapped in an illogical, surreal situation, leading Sondheim to reportedly ask: “Why would these people be singing when they’re trapped in this room?” To its composer, the emotional directness of singing seemed inappropriate here.

    Instead, as with the ambiguity that characterises much of Sondheim’s work, we get something more open-ended, perhaps even rebellious. Without the usual musical release, tension builds. What do these characters really feel? What does their inaction demonstrate?

    The kind of musical silence gives rise to such questions, becoming a space in which characters and audiences can reflect, transform and critique. The second act of Here We Are is not simply a story about people who cannot leave a room – it is about being confined by habits, class structures and privilege. Characters and audiences alike are forced to confront these things without the thrill of song to soften the edges.

    Here We Are further plays with musical theatre’s deepest conventions. What if the thing we expect most – the habit and structure of singing in a musical – does not happen? What if the absence of singing is the most powerful sonic gesture of all?

    To end his final work in this way feels like Sondheim has played one last trick on his audience. After a career of writing some of the most emotionally complex songs in musical theatre – such as Send in the Clowns from A Little Night Music – he leaves us with one final challenge to the structure of the form he expanded.

    In an interview with journalist Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker in 2014, Sondheim said his dream project would be “not writing”. With Here We Are, he was almost there.

    Ben Macpherson 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. Here We Are: how silence defines Stephen Sondheim’s last musical – https://theconversation.com/here-we-are-how-silence-defines-stephen-sondheims-last-musical-258718

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The UK failed grooming gang victims by not seeing ‘children as children’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle McManus, Professor of Safeguarding and Violence Prevention, Co-Director of the Institute for Children’s Futures, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Mariana Serdynska/Shutterstock

    The announcement of a national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation raises urgent questions: How did we end up here again? Haven’t there been enough reports? Why weren’t children protected the first time? And will these reforms actually change anything?

    As someone who has worked for years in safeguarding policy and research into grooming, county lines drug trafficking and child criminal exploitation, I believe this moment could be different. For the first time in years, there is political momentum, public scrutiny and survivor-led demand for change all converging. But we have to honest about how we got here.

    The inquiry, which will have full statutory powers, follows crossbench peer Louise Casey’s rapid national audit into grooming gangs. Her report lays bare what the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, described as a “collective failure” over 15 years. This phrase reflects not just high-profile cases in Rotherham, Rochdale or Telford, but a nationwide pattern of authorities disbelieving victims, delaying action and denying the scale of the problem.

    Since 2014, inquiry after inquiry has revealed how children, often girls, care-experienced young people, or those from marginalised backgrounds were not listened to, with some dismissed by social services as making “life choices”. Despite the Jay report, the 2022 Telford inquiry, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, victims were often not seen as victims at all.

    Seeing ‘children as children’

    One of the most striking lines in Lady Casey’s audit came just before her 12 recommendations: “We need to see children as children.” This cuts to the heart of how so many victims were failed. When professionals view teenagers as complicit, consenting, or “making choices”, they stop seeing the child in need of protection.

    Casey revealed that even today, many victims are still falling through the cracks because their exploitation doesn’t fit assumptions. The report revealed that cases involving 13- to 15-year-olds were too often dropped or downgraded from rape, with professionals referencing that the child was “in love” or had “consented”.

    These interpretations ignore the law — which sets the age of consent at 16 — and more importantly, they ignore the power imbalance and coercion at the heart of grooming. Casey has called for the law to be unambiguous: any penetrative sex with a child under 16 must be classified as rape.

    This failure to see children as victims is deeply embedded. In 2023, 706 group-based child sexual exploitation offences were recorded. A number dwarfed by the estimated 500,000 annual cases of child sexual abuse in England and Wales.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    One reason for this gap, as Casey’s audit acknowledges, is that “the results tend to obscure rather than clarify the picture of group-based child sexual exploitation”. Much abuse is made invisible by confusing and inconsistently applied definitions, where grooming is recorded under unrelated offence types such as gang or drug crime, rather than identified as exploitation.

    In my own research and parliamentary evidence, I’ve repeatedly warned that when a child is caught carrying drugs or cash, they are too often seen as a criminal first — not as someone coerced, groomed or harmed.

    These assumptions directly shape the outcome of a case. In earlier grooming gang cases identified in the various inquiries, girls were seen as “promiscuous” or as having “chosen” to associate with older men. These narratives made it easier for agencies to downplay reports, delay interventions or ignore disclosures altogether.

    Casey rightly highlights how exploiters have taken advantage of the blurred legal and professional treatment of 13- to 15-year-olds in sexual exploitation cases. But it is concerning that proposed legislation (the crime and policing bill) appears to replicate the same flaws in how it treats child criminal exploitation. The bill introduces different assumptions about a young person’s “awareness” or involvement, even where grooming or coercion is present.

    This risks embedding a double standard: one where a 14-year-old can’t consent to sex, but can be seen as knowingly trafficking drugs. Without urgent scrutiny, we risk repeating the same failures but under the banner of criminal exploitation. It is still child exploitation.

    What’s different about these reforms?

    The government has accepted all 12 of Casey’s recommendations, including making ethnicity data collection mandatory and fast-tracking rape charges for adults abusing under-16s.

    It has also promised mandated data-sharing to finally resolve the communication failures that have dogged policing, social care and health services for decades.

    The Casey audit underscores how urgent these reforms are. It found that two-thirds of recorded perpetrators had no ethnicity data captured, making it impossible to draw clear national conclusions. In areas like Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, there was evidence of over-representation among men of Asian ethnicity.

    But the data-sharing failures go far beyond demographics. In many serious case reviews, including ones I’ve worked on, key information held by one agency (such as frequent missing episodes recorded by police) were never pieced together across agencies. Mandated data-sharing could have allowed professionals to spot patterns of grooming earlier and intervene before exploitation escalated.

    We’ve seen versions of these promises before. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse made over 80 recommendations. The Jay report outlined repeated missed chances to intervene. In 2022, the Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse called for urgent reforms to how police and social workers identify and respond to child sexual exploitation. Many of those changes were either delayed, diluted or quietly dropped.

    Some changes, such as the statutory inquiry’s power to compel evidence, are welcome. But legal duty doesn’t automatically translate into professional confidence or competence. The systems and infrastructure needed to enable professionals to share data consistently and safely still do not exist.

    I’ve observed how even the most robust policy and guidance fails in practice because professionals are underresourced, overwhelmed, lack experience, or are unprepared to challenge risk-averse decision making.

    For example, mandated data-sharing has been a goal since the 1980s. It was a central recommendation in the 1987 Cleveland inquiry and the 2000 Victoria Climbié inquiry, both of which dealt with child abuse. It has remained a consistent theme in reviews from the child safeguarding practice review panel and in my own national evaluations.

    Yvette Cooper delivers a speech on the ‘collective failure’ in the handling of grooming gangs cases.
    House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Case reviews across four decades have cited the same failures: organisations not talking to each other, files siloed, risks misunderstood. In the cases explored in the Casey audit, better data-sharing could have helped agencies identify patterns of concern much earlier, including young people going missing from home or school, presenting at sexual health clinics, or being repeatedly reported in distress by family members, teachers and health practitioners.

    Instead, these signs remained isolated. Without a full picture, no single agency recognised what was happening. Children were left unprotected while perpetrators continued to offend.

    Unless we address why so many professionals have historically avoided taking action, whether due to fear of being seen as racist, fear of reputational harm, or simply not believing children, reforms may look good on paper but fall short in reality.

    The Casey audit shows we haven’t just failed to act, we’ve failed to learn. “Collective failure” is a powerful phrase, but without collective responsibility, we risk repeating the cycle.

    Michelle McManus has received funding from Home Office, Department for Education and National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales. She is also currently seconded as part of a Chancellor’s Fellowship at Manchester Met, with the VKPP, which is part of the National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection.

    – ref. The UK failed grooming gang victims by not seeing ‘children as children’ – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Boozman Holds Hearing Examining FY26 Budget Request for Military Construction and Family Housing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas – John Boozman
    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR), Chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (MilCon-VA) Appropriations Subcommittee, held a hearing examining the fiscal year 2026 budget request for military infrastructure and family housing. As a critical force enabler, these projects support everything from infrastructure tied to new weapons platforms to quality-of-life facilities like hospitals, schools and housing. Chairman Boozman emphasized the need to deliver timely, high-quality facilities on schedule and within budget, and expressed his hope that future budget requests reflect efficiencies that lower the cost of individual projects.
    Chairman Boozman delivered the following opening statement, lightly edited for clarity and length:
    Good morning, and the subcommittee will come to order.
    First, I would like to welcome Ranking Member Ossoff and congratulate him on the birth of his second daughter, Lila.  I look forward to working with you on the subcommittee.
    We meet today to discuss the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for military construction and family housing for the Department of Defense.
    I would like to begin by recognizing today’s panel. Today we will hear from representatives of all the military services as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    This year’s MILCON request is $18.9 billion, a figure we only recently received due to significant delays in delivery of the budget to Congress. We on the subcommittee look forward to receiving the justification books and related exhibits, which still have not been delivered but are expected later this month.
    From the data currently available, we know this request is an increase of $1.4 billion over the fiscal year 2025 enacted levels. While I am encouraged to see another year of growth in the MILCON request, I remain concerned that we’re not necessarily buying more, we’re simply paying more.
    Some of these budget numbers are staggering.
    Not that long ago hitting the $100 million mark on a single project was significant—now it has become routine. Increments, once the exception, are increasingly the norm, accounting for nearly $6 billion in this year’s request. That’s more than 40 projects so costly they require incremental funding over multiple years. 
    That may seem normal now, but this was not always the case.
    Multi-billion-dollar recapitalization efforts, combined with the increasing complexity of facilities needed to support today’s weapons systems, are resulting in larger and more complex projects.
    At the same time, inflation and other economic pressures continue to escalate costs. This trajectory is not sustainable and future budget requests cannot continue absorbing these rising costs.
    To that end, I am encouraged by the conversations taking place within the Department that are examining the full range of factors—policies, procedures, regulations and laws—that affect MILCON and its associated costs. Some of these are established by Congress, others stem from DoD policy, and some may be self-imposed. 
    As such, the effort required to drive meaningful changes will vary. But I’m hopeful that these discussions will lead to thoughtful analysis, honest dialogue, and ultimately, real improvements in the efficiency of the MILCON process. 
    Some of this will require close collaboration between Congress and the Department, and I’m committed to being a partner in that effort.
    There will always be factors beyond your control, which makes managing the areas you can control all the more critical. 
    The recent injunction reinstating Project Labor Agreement requirements is a clear example of how external influences can introduce uncertainty and added costs into the MILCON process, costs that are especially difficult to anticipate given how long the current planning, programming and budgeting cycle takes.
    I hope one outcome of the ongoing review directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense is a faster timeline from project inception to final delivery.
    As a critical force enabler, MILCON supports everything from infrastructure tied to new weapons platforms to quality-of-life facilities like hospitals, schools and housing. We owe it to the servicemember, and the taxpayer, to deliver timely, high-quality facilities on schedule and within budget, and I hope that future budget requests reflect efficiencies that lower the cost of individual projects. 
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and continuing the dialogue and work needed for a successful MILCON program.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tony Robert Walker, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University

    Negotiations toward a global, legally binding plastics treaty are set to resume this summer, with the United Nations Environment Programme announcing that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastic pollution will reconvene in August.

    The committee was established to develop an international legally binding instrument — known as the plastics treaty — to end plastic pollution, one of the fastest-growing environmental threats.



    Read more:
    Here’s how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis

    Globally, 40 per cent of plastics production goes into the production of single-use plastic packaging, which is the single largest source of plastic waste and is a threat to wildlife and human health. Without meaningful action, global plastic waste is projected to nearly triple by 2060, reaching an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes.

    As the world prepares for another round of talks, Canada’s own plastic problem reveals what’s at stake, and what’s possible for the future.

    Canada’s plastic problem

    Canada is no exception to the global plastic crisis. Nearly half (47 per cent) of all plastic waste in Canada comes from the food and drink sector, contributing 3,268 million tonnes annually. Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve.

    Most of Canada’s plastic — except for plastic bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) — are uneconomical or difficult to recycle because of the complexity of mixed plastics used in our economy. As a result, 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste — equivalent to the weight of 24 CN Towers — end up in landfills every year.

    This is not a trivial problem, as Ontario is projected to run out of landfill space by 2035. Plastic pollution poses growing risks to both urban and rural infrastructure.

    In addition to landfill overflow, around one per cent of Canada’s plastic waste leaks into the environment. In 2016, this was 29,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. Once in the environment, plastics disintegrate into tiny particles, called microplastics (small pieces of plastic less than five millimetres long).

    We drink those tiny microplastic particles in our tap water, and eat them in our fish dinners. Some are even making their way into farmland.

    Plastics are everywhere, including inside us

    More than 93 per cent of Canadians have expressed concerns over single-use plastics used in food packaging and have supported government bans. There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in the environment, in our food and in us.

    Growing evidence indicates that plastics can cause harmful health effects in humans and animals. Microplastics and smaller nanoplastics (less than one micron in length) have been found in humans, including infants and breast milk. They can cause metabolic disorders, interfere with our immune and reproductive systems and cause behavioural problems.

    These health problems may be caused by chemicals added to plastics, including single-use plastics, of which 4,200 chemicals have been identified as posing a hazard to human and ecosystem health.

    It is for these reasons that the Canadian government introduced a ban on single-use plastics in 2022 as part of a plan to reach zero plastic waste in Canada by 2030.

    The decision was based extensive public and industry consultation, as well as decades of data on plastic pollution gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. This data shows the most common plastic litter items found in the environment across Canada, known as the “dirty dozen” list.

    Six of these items were included in the federal ban. Three eastern Canadian provinces had already implemented single-use plastic bag bans before the federal government, with little to no public or industry opposition. Prince Edward Island was the first Canadian province to implement a province-wide plastic bag ban in July 2019, closely followed by Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in October 2020.

    The politics of plastic

    Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, debates around plastic pollution are becoming increasingly politicized.

    In February in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to “stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within federal buildings.”

    Trump told reporters at the White House: “I don’t think plastic is going to affect a shark very much, as they’re munching their way through the ocean.” Almost 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have reported, however, that more than 4,000 species have ingested or been entangled by plastic litter.

    In Canada, plastic has also become a political flashpoint. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would scrap the federal government’s ban on single-use plastics and bring back plastic straws and grocery bags. He argued the government’s ban was about “symbolism” rather than “science,” saying, “the Liberals’ plastics ban is not about the environment, it’s about cost and control.”

    His promise would have harmed Canadians by dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that plastics in our bodies are linked to health impacts. Legislation to ban single-use plastics can be highly effective, ranging from 33 to 96 per cent reductions in plastic waste and pollution in the environment, depending on the policy and jurisdiction.

    Canada’s single-use plastics ban is a great example of evidence-based policymaking. The latest data from the conservation group Ocean Wise shows there was a 32 per cent drop in plastic straws found on Canadian shorelines in 2024 compared to the previous year.

    Science-based policies are needed

    It is indisputable that growing plastic production is directly related to plastic pollution in the environment and in human beings. Increasing plastic pollution is a global threat to human and ecosystem health, regardless of borders and political affiliation.

    As negotiators gear up for another round of talks to finalize a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution, the need for policies that are supported by scientific evidence is more urgent than ever.

    Future generations deserve a healthy and sustainable planet. The path towards a healthy and sustainable planet requires supporting action based on scientific evidence, not misinforming people with catchy phrases and political rhetoric.

    Tony Robert Walker receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Research Nova Scotia. He is also a non-remunerated member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

    Miriam L Diamond receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Future Earth, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. She is affiliated with the University of Toronto, serves as a paid expert for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, and has non-remunerated positions with the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (Vice-Chair), is a member of the Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and sits on the board of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

    – ref. Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire – https://theconversation.com/plastics-threaten-ecosystems-and-human-health-but-evidence-based-solutions-are-under-political-fire-256764

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Britain be a nation of tea growers? Scientists say yes – and it could even be good for your health

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amanda Lloyd, Researcher in Food, Diet and Health, Aberystwyth University

    Almost 100 million cups of tea are consumed daily in the UK. Meteoritka/Shutterstock

    It’s not every day you find yourself standing in a tea garden in Devon, surrounded by rows of Camellia sinensis – the same plant species used to make tea in India, China and Japan. But there we were, in the heart of Dartmoor, picking fresh tea leaves from plants that are thriving in the UK’s cool, damp climate.

    It’s a surprising sight, and one that could become more common. Britain may be known as a “nation of tea drinkers”, but might there be opportunities for it to increasingly be a nation of tea growers? Our research has involved working with growers in Devon and Wales to explore the chemistry of UK-grown tea.

    We’re using a technique called “metabolomics” to understand what’s going on inside the leaves, and how different growing conditions, processing methods and even fermentation (like making kombucha) affect the final cup.

    Tea competes with coffee to be the UK’s favourite drink, but almost all tea leaves are imported. With concerns about climate change, food security and sustainability increasing, there’s growing interest in whether more food, including tea, can be grown in the UK.

    We chose mid-Wales and south-west England for our project because of their mild, wet climates, which are surprisingly well-suited to tea cultivation. Dartmoor, in particular, has a unique microclimate and varied soils that make it an ideal test site. There’s also a strong local appetite for sustainable farming and agricultural innovation.

    Wales already has a tea pioneer in Lucy George, a Nuffield farming scholar who began growing tea near Cardiff in 2014. Her brand, Peterston Tea, is now sold in Welsh shops and around the world. She believes that slower growth in Wales’ cooler climate may actually improve flavour, making Welsh-grown tea more than just a curiosity.

    Dr Amanda J Lloyd and Dr Ali Warren-Walker gathering samples at Dartmoor Estate Tea in Devon.
    Aberystwyth University, CC BY

    What we found

    One of our studies used metabolomics and machine learning to explore the chemical diversity of UK-grown tea.

    Metabolomics involves analysing the small molecules – known as “metabolites” – in a sample. These include sugars, amino acids and polyphenols, as well as more complex “bioactives” like catechins and flavonoids. These types of compounds influence flavour, aroma and potential health benefits.

    We used method called “direct injection mass spectrometry” to create a chemical fingerprint of each sample. Then we used machine learning to spot patterns and differences. We also looked at how the chemistry of the leaves changes depending on the time of day they’re picked and how they’re processed.

    Our findings show that tea grown in the UK has a rich and diverse chemical profile. Different varieties, picking times and processing techniques all influence the concentration of beneficial compounds like catechins and flavonoids.

    The other study was a human trial, which found that drinking green tea from Dartmoor with rhubarb root for 21 days significantly reduced LDL (bad) cholesterol and total cholesterol, and without disrupting the gut microbiome. This suggests that UK-grown tea could be developed into a functional food, supporting health. This product is now being sold by a tea company in Carmarthenshire, west Wales.

    This is exciting because it means we can tailor how we grow and process tea to enhance both its flavour and its health benefits. And it opens the door to a potential new UK-grown tea industry. It could play a part in supporting the rural economy, reduce reliance on imports and offer a more sustainable future for UK agriculture.

    On a global level, this kind of research helps us understand how plants respond to different environments, which is crucial for food security in a changing climate.

    A Cornish tea grower explains the challenges of growing tea in the UK.

    What’s next?

    We’re now investigating how different tea varieties and processing techniques – like steaming, oxidation and novel drying methods – influence the tea’s chemical make-up. These techniques could help preserve more of the beneficial compounds and make it easier to develop new tea-based products like powders or supplements.

    Another human study is looking at how kombucha affects well-being, memory, inflammation and stress.

    We’re also continuing to test how different varieties of tea respond to the UK’s conditions, and how we can refine growing and processing techniques to produce high-quality, health-promoting tea on home soil.

    As climate change reshapes what we can grow and where, tea may just become one of the UK’s most unexpected and exciting new crops.

    Amanda Lloyd receives funding from Welsh Government Covid Recovery Challenge Fund (part of the Welsh Government’s Food and Drink Division funding), alongside Innovate UK Better Food for all (10068218), and the Joy Welch Research Fund (Aberystwyth University internal)

    Nigel Holt receives funding from Innovate UK Better Food for all (10068218)

    – ref. Can Britain be a nation of tea growers? Scientists say yes – and it could even be good for your health – https://theconversation.com/can-britain-be-a-nation-of-tea-growers-scientists-say-yes-and-it-could-even-be-good-for-your-health-257495

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephanie Walton, Researcher on Food Systems and Sustainable Finance, University of Oxford

    Ocphoto/Shutterstock

    The food industry will go to great lengths (and spend a fortune) to lobby policymakers, confuse the public and politicise scientific findings. You can see the results in the UK’s delay of a ban on junk food advertisers targeting children, or the orchestrated backlash to a report that recommended cutting red meat consumption and embracing more plant-based diets.

    It’s a well-worn playbook. When scientific evidence indicates the need to phase down environmentally harmful or unhealthy products, the responsible industry pushes back.

    Motivating this resistance, my colleagues and I believe, is something rarely discussed in the context of food systems: stranded assets. These are investments that lose value or stop generating revenue earlier than their owners and investors anticipated, due to changes in market conditions, technology or – of particular interest here – policy and regulation.

    This concept has been central to debates in the energy transition. For example, studies have shown that keeping global warming below 2 °C will require leaving fossil fuels in the ground and shutting down power plants before they’ve generated a return on investment, wiping off about US$1 trillion (£736 billion) in value for companies, financial institutions and investors.

    The same dynamic applies to the task of feeding everyone well and without substantial environmental harm. What we produce must change, as well as how we produce it.

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

    Producing animal-sourced protein, especially beef and dairy, has environmental impacts that dwarf those of plant-based protein. Some new technologies may reduce these impacts, particularly feed additives to reduce methane emissions from cattle. But the negative impacts go far beyond cow burps to include deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and pollution.

    Beef in particular, even when produced using intensive systems like feedlots in the US, requires substantially more land to make 100 grams of protein than any other source (excluding lamb, which is produced in much lower quantities).

    As the global population increases and constraints on land use intensify, as much nourishing food as possible will need to be produced on as little land as possible. This will entail slashing the amount of land used for animal-sourced foods.

    However, companies consistently invest in the assets that produce, process, transport and store the foods we consume. These range from slaughterhouses to the grain silos and transport equipment for single-crop supply chains, to manufacturing plants and the research and development of ultra-processed foods.

    Crops are cultivated over vast acres of land to feed livestock.
    Ekrem Sahin/Shutterstock

    In order to curtail certain foods, as part of a global shift towards sustainable and healthy diets, these assets cannot generate the revenue they do now. This means writing off some of the capital that has been sunk into them, and any anticipated revenue.

    Our research identified £217 billion that has been invested in meatpacking plants, for example. A portion of this will be lost in service of a shift to more plant-based sustenance.

    Whether or not policymakers and researchers are aware of the stranded assets problem, food companies certainly are.

    Polluter pays or pay the polluter?

    We outline three things that need to happen.

    First, while it is laudable that companies set targets to cut emissions or deforestation, how they invest their money is not always consistent with these goals. Companies need to disclose to investors and the public which of their assets are incompatible with a sustainable future, and how they plan to phase them out.

    Second, lenders (typically banks) and investors (asset managers and their clients) must work with the companies they fund to manage these transitions rather than simply revoke financing or divest. Shutting down a meatpacking plant and building up a plant-based protein business is costly, and firms will need support.

    Divestment can play an important role symbolically, signalling an ethical and moral stance against certain activities. But unless it is done by all investors at once, assets like shares go to other buyers with little or no interest in sustainability.

    Third, and perhaps the thorniest problem, who pays for stranded assets? The money has already been spent. The investments have been made, the meatpacking plants and infrastructure already built, the anticipated revenue and maximised profit margins already embedded in the value of these companies.

    There is the cost of shutting down assets early as well as the opportunity cost of not making money that was expected from capital that has already been sunk. Who bears those costs?

    Many assume the answer is straightforward: the polluter should pay. This is certainly possible to achieve. Take the recent ruling in Germany, which determined that private companies can be held liable for their share in causing climate damages.

    But implementing this principle requires unusually strong political leadership and sustained public support. Both of these things are difficult to secure, particularly in food systems where industry lobbying is intense, livelihoods are at stake, public attention is fragmented and diets are highly personal and easily politicised.

    Capital sunk into infrastructure makes change costly.
    Catstyecam/Shutterstock

    Even when policies designed to improve public health or sustainability are passed, they can be easily rolled back. Which brings us to an uncomfortable alternative: paying the polluter.

    This approach already exists in other sectors. Since 2020, Germany has paid coal plants to retire early. The same has been done in the Netherlands, parts of the US and several other countries. In the Netherlands, the government paid farmers to reduce dairy herds in certain areas in order to hit pollution targets.

    Paying off food companies to phase out harmful assets sounds like a bailout and feels unfair, since a clean and thriving environment is a human right. Such an approach could only work if it allowed stronger regulation that ensured such pollution wouldn’t occur in the future. This is how abolitionists contributed to ending slavery in the UK.

    If we’re stuck between endless policy whiplash and slow-motion climate and health crises, paying the polluter may be worth considering. It’s politically fraught and emotionally frustrating, but when it comes to stopping pollution sooner rather than later, it is perhaps more tractable than waiting for political will, corporate courage and public consensus to converge.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Stephanie Walton 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. Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses? – https://theconversation.com/coal-power-plants-were-paid-to-close-is-it-time-to-do-the-same-for-slaughterhouses-257418

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Ending Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 17, 2025

    SACRAMENTO – Ahead of today’s court hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles, learn more about what Governor Gavin Newsom has done to protect Californians.

    I’m confident in the rule of law. I’m confident in the Constitution of the United States. I’m confident in the reasoned decision issued last week by a very well respected federal judge. And I’m confident that common sense will prevail here: The U.S. military belongs on the battlefield, not on American streets.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Taking action early 

    On Friday, June 6, 2025, the federal government, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, began conducting widespread operations throughout Los Angeles without notifying local law enforcement. ICE officers sparked panic with military-style operations and the arrest and detention of children. This panic quickly grew into outrage, as community members stood up to make their voices heard through spontaneous protests. Local law enforcement, despite the lack of communication or advance notice about the raids from the federal government, responded quickly to keep the peace and quell any unrest. California has a robust array of law enforcement resources, which it quickly began to mobilize, without requesting federal assistance. Despite the lack of need to escalate the response, President Trump declared on July 7 that he was taking over the state’s National Guard and would begin deploying thousands of soldiers into the Los Angeles community.

    Trump’s action was unnecessary, unwelcome, and unsafe. Before Trump federalized the National Guard, Governor Newsom had already deployed additional California Highway Patrol officers to Los Angeles to assist with safety on regional highways and enlisted local law enforcement mutual aid partners to help keep the peace.

    • LA Police Department Chief has said: “We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard.”

    • LA County Sheriff has said: “We have access to a lot of other law enforcement agencies.”

    And again, as is standard practice, Governor Newsom mobilized, through a pre-deployment, additional resources across the Golden State ahead of the “No Kings” nationwide protests — which went peacefully. Instead of easing tension, Trump’s deployment of military officials to Los Angeles only drew more protesters, requiring state law enforcement officials to increase their efforts to maintain order. 

    Requesting immediate removal  

    On Sunday, June 8, the day after Trump’s unprecedented takeover of a California National Guard unit , Governor Newsom formally requested the federalization of the National Guard members be rescinded — and the state regain control, rightfully.

    Action in the courts

    Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit requesting a stay on Trump’s unlawful order to federalize the National Guard unit, and shortly afterwards, filed an emergency motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Read a step-by-step blog post about why Trump’s militarization is illegal. 

    On Thursday, June 12, a federal judge in San Francisco sided with the Governor — ordering the Trump Administration to return the federalized National Guard unit (at this point numbering 4,000 soldiers) back to Governor Newsom’s command. A 3-judge appellate panel will now decide whether to let the district court judge’s order take effect sometime after June 17. See the Governor’s argument in support of the Judge’s order here.

    Governor Newsom is standing up for the rights of all Americans, as President Trump’s order was not only directed at California, but suggested he could assume control of any state’s militia, using soldiers as a police force against American citizens.

    Hypocrisy of the Trump Administration 

    In 2020, President Trump told George Stephanopoulos: “We have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can’t move in the National Guard — I can call an insurrection — but there is no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case. We can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a Governor.” 

    In 2024, Secretary Kristi Noem — then a sitting Governor — said to Sean Hannity on Fox News: “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on state’s rights…South Dakota defends the Constitution.”

    See the prior times the Trump Admin didn’t federalize a state’s national guard — though conditions were likely worse than Los Angeles.

    Military veterans speaking out

    Veterans are speaking out over the unnecessary and inflammatory actions.  

    • Janessa Goldbeck, U.S. Marine Corps Veteran, Senior Advisor of VoteVets said: “When a president uses the military to police his own people, we are no longer in the realm of democratic governance—we are witnessing the rehearsal of authoritarian rule.” 

    And former secretaries of the Army and Navy and retired four-star admirals and generals filed an amicus brief warning of the grave risks associated with the Trump administration’s illegal militarization of downtown Los Angeles.

    • Former U.S. Army and Navy secretaries and retired four-star admirals and generals have said: “While the President is entitled to criticize his opponents in political terms, involving the military in domestic political controversies risks harming the military’s ability to recruit and retain servicemembers and garner broad public support for its budgets and programs, therefore undermining its ability to achieve its core mission of protecting the nation. It is precisely for this reason that the military should be kept out of domestic law enforcement whenever possible.”

    $134 million reasons why this is wrong 

    As the federal government adds to the open deficit tab, taxpayers are footing the $134 million militarization display in Los Angeles where Trump illegally took control over state National Guard units. Trump federalized 4,000 National Guard soldiers and deployed 700 Marines to use as pawns in Los Angeles – turning the military into his own personal police force. Even as tensions rise in the Middle East, in an unprecedented move, there are now more American troops deployed in Los Angeles than in Iraq and Syria combined.

    Threats to Californians 

    Governor Newsom launched a new effort to recruit for one of the world’s leading firefighting departments, CAL FIRE. The effort coincides with President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles cuts into valuable firefighting resources — roughly 300 California National Guard fire crews have been diverted to armories in the Los Angeles region, cutting CalGuard’s firefighting force by three-quarters. This is on top of the Trump administration’s cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which also threatens the safety of communities across the states.

    President Trump’s proposing to gut public safety funding across the country — putting the safety and lives of all Americans at risk. At a time when violent crime is dropping, Trump’s so-called “big beautiful bill” threatens to erase substantial progress on public safety, at a time when exactly the opposite is needed.

    In constant contact with law enforcement

    The Governor has met multiple times with local law enforcement leaders on the ground, and with state officials. The Governor announced that 800+ local and state law enforcement would be “surged” into the Los Angeles area to de-escalate the situation manufactured by Trump.

    Bigger picture: Transforming the Mental Health Services Act into the Behavioral Health Services Act and building more community mental health treatment sites and supportive housing is the last main pillar of Governor Newsom’s Mental Health Movement – pulling together significant recent reforms like 988 crisis line, CalHOPE, CARE Court, conservatorship reform, CalAIM behavioral health expansion (including mobile crisis care and telehealth), Medi-Cal expansion to all low-income Californians, Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (including expanding services in schools and on-line), Older Adult Behavioral Health Initiative, Veterans Mental Health Initiative, Behavioral Health Community Infrastructure Program, Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, Health Care Workforce for All and more.

    Learn more: The Governor launched a new website to track the chaos campaign Trump is pursuing in his militarization of LA

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    Jun 17, 2025

    News What you need to know: President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles is hamstringing firefighting resources in California just as peak fire season begins. SACRAMENTO – All 14 Joint Task Force Rattlesnake teams responded to the Los Angeles fires in…

    Jun 17, 2025

    News What you need to know: Against the backdrop of President Trump’s massive and costly bill gutting laws protecting against AI-generated child pornography, scams, and other criminal activity, Governor Newsom is continuing his leadership by releasing a groundbreaking…

    Jun 17, 2025

    News What you need to know: As Governor Newsom’s motion to block the Trump Administration’s illegal militarization of downtown Los Angeles heads to the Ninth Circuit, former military leaders agree – Trump’s takeover poses grave risk to both servicemembers and…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Leessa Augustine, Former Sewerage & Water Board Special Agent and New Orleans Police Officer, Pleads Guilty to Multiple Fraud Schemes

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA – LEESSA AUGUSTINE (“AUGUSTINE”) age 46, a resident of New Orleans, pleaded guilty on June 10, 2025, to several charges related to her involvement in fraud schemes while employed as a Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans (“S&WB”) Senior Special Agent.  In this role, AUGUSTINE was tasked with investigating the alleged misconduct of other Sewerage & Water Board employees.

    According to court records, in one scheme, AUGUSTINE, who also served as a New Orleans Police Department reserve officer, billed a police detail customer for hours not actually worked.  During some of the times AUGUSTINE was supposed to be working the police detail for the Downtown Development District, she used her S&WB-issued computer to conduct a second fraud scheme, that involved obtaining a mortgage loan and federally funded assistance for low-income homebuyers.  In that home-purchase scheme, AUGUSTINE created fake documents, including a fake W-2 form, fake pay stubs, and fake bank statements. In a third scheme, AUGUSTINE obtained federally funded unemployment benefits by concealing her Senior Special Agent income.  Finally, in a fourth scheme, AUGUSTINE obtained federally funded emergency rental assistance from the City of New Orleans, by submitting a fake lease and a termination letter from a fictitious employer. At various times during the schemes, AUGUSTINE provided her S&WB-issued cellphone number as a contact number for three different persons she impersonated.  As a result of her fraud schemes, AUGUSTINE pled guilty to three counts of wire fraud.  She also pled guilty to one count of making false statements, for lying to investigators. 

    The wire fraud charges are each punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment, which may be followed by up to five years of supervised release.  The false statement charge is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, which may be followed by up to three years of supervised release.  Each count may also include a fine of up to $250,000 and a $100 mandatory special assessment fee.  Sentencing is set for September 16, 2025.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Simpson expressed his appreciation for the valuable assistance and contributions of the New Orleans Office of Inspector General, and the New Orleans Police Department in connection with this case.

    This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Inspector General – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Inspector General – U.S. Department of Labor, and the Office of Inspector General – U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Chandra Menon of the Public Integrity Unit.

    MIL Security OSI –