NewzIntel.com

Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI USA: U.S. Department of Energy to Distribute First Amounts of HALEU to U.S. Advanced Reactor Developers

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WASHINGTON, D.C. —The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today made conditional commitments to provide high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) to five U.S. nuclear developers to meet their near-term fuel needs. This first round of HALEU allocations brings innovative American nuclear technologies one step closer to commercialization and will expand the use of nuclear energy to deliver more secure, affordable, and reliable energy to the American people.

    “The Trump Administration is unleashing all sources of affordable, reliable and secure American energy – and this includes accelerating the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “Allocating this HALEU material will help U.S. nuclear developers deploy their advanced reactors with materials sourced from secure supply chains, marking an important step forward in President Trump’s program to revitalize America’s nuclear sector.” 

    Many advanced reactors will need HALEU to achieve smaller designs, longer operating cycles, and increased efficiencies over current technologies, but HALEU is not currently available from domestic suppliers.

    To help fill this gap, DOE created the HALEU allocation process for nuclear developers to request HALEU material from DOE sources, including material from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). DOE received HALEU requests from 15 companies. For this first round, DOE identified five of those companies that met prioritization criteria, with three of them requiring fuel delivery in 2025.  

    The five companies that received conditional commitments are:
    •    TRISO-X, LLC.
    •    Kairos Power, LLC.
    •    Radiant Industries, Inc.
    •    Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC
    •    TerraPower, LLC.

    The allocated HALEU supports both Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) Pathway 1 award recipients, companies planning to demonstrate in the DOME test bed, along with some ARDP risk reduction awardees – reinforcing DOE’s commitment to our industry partnerships.

    As a next step, DOE will initiate the contracting process to allocate the material to the five companies, some of which could receive their HALEU as early as this fall. The allocation process is ongoing, and DOE plans to continue HALEU allocations to additional companies in the future.

    The first round of conditional commitments of HALEU were made through the HALEU Availability Program, which was established in 2020 to secure a domestic supply of HALEU for civilian domestic research, development, demonstration, and commercial use. 

    Learn more about DOE’s HALEU Availability Program at HALEU Availability Program | Department of Energy.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Massachusetts Man Sentenced to More Than a Year in Prison for Dogfighting

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Sentence adjudicates first-ever federal dogfighting case in District of Massachusetts

    BOSTON – A Hanson, Mass. man was sentenced today in federal court in Boston for possessing dogs at his Massachusetts home for participation in a dogfighting venture.

    John D. Murphy, 51, was sentenced by U.S. Senior District Court Judge William G. Young to one year and one day in prison, with the last three months to be served in community confinement, followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 and ordered prohibited from possessing pit-bull type dogs. In November 2024, Murphy pleaded guilty to nine counts of possessing animals for use in an animal fighting venture, in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Murphy was indicted by a federal grand jury in March 2024.  

    “Dogfighting is a blood sport rooted in cruelty and greed. For years, Mr. Murphy brutalized defenseless animals for profit and sport – training them to fight, suffer and die for his own financial gain. His actions were not only illegal but deeply disturbing,” said United States Attorney Leah B. Foley. “This sentencing marks a historic moment in the first federal dogfighting conviction in Massachusetts and serves as a stark warning: those who engage in this barbaric practice will be exposed, prosecuted and punished. We will not tolerate animal cruelty in our communities.”

    “Dog fighting is a brutal and inhumane form of entertainment and is associated with other organized criminal activity, including illegal gambling,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). “We are committed to holding violators accountable. We commend the collaboration between federal and multiple state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting this case.”

    “The Office of Inspector General is committed to working with all of our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners in pursuing individuals who choose to participate in animal fighting activities and engage in violations involving animal welfare,” said Charmeka Parker, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Office of Inspector General, Northeast Region.

    In 2021, Murphy was identified discussing dogfighting on recorded calls with a New York-based dogfighting target. A subsequent search of his Facebook accounts revealed Murphy’s years-long involvement in dogfighting. Murphy communicated with other dogfighters via Facebook where they discussed the results of dogfights, injuries sustained by fighting dogs, as well as breeding dogs. Murphy also belonged to private dogfighting Facebook groups used to share fight results, buy and sell fighting dogs and exchange information on training and conditioning fighting dogs, among other things.

    Photos and videos found on Murphy’s Facebook account showed a pit bull-type dog with scarring and discolorations on its head and leg consistent with that of dogfighting as well as a photo of a pit bull-type dog restrained in a breeding stand. Videos from his account showed pit bull-type dogs physically tethered to different treadmill-like devices that dogfighters commonly use to physically condition dogs for dogfights. One of the videos depicted a live raccoon caged in front of the carpet mill, to serve as a stimulus for the pit bull-type dog to run faster and harder.  

    In June 2023, a search of Murphy’s residence in Hanson revealed that he was keeping nine pit bull-type dogs at his home. Several of the dogs had scarring consistent with being involved in organized dogfighting.

    Animal fighting paraphernalia was also found during the search of Murphy’s residence, including: 

    • Flirt poles, used to entice a dog to chase a stimulus;
    • Spring poles, used to build a dog’s jaw strength and increase aggression;
    • Several treadmills, slat mills and carpet mills, used to condition dogs to build stamina and muscle;
    • A jenny mill, used to develop a dog’s endurance and musculature by enticing the animal to run on a circular track;
    • Rabbit training scent for dogs;
    • Break sticks, used to force a dog’s bite open, specifically at the termination of a fight or while training;
    • A dog bite sleeve;
    • Disposable skin staplers, used to attempt to close wounds resulting from dogfights;
    • Several types of steroids and painkillers;
    • Fertility medications and a breeding stand, used to restrain female dogs during breeding;
    • Printouts of fighting dog pedigrees; and
    • Dog fighting literature, DVDs and CD-ROMs.

    A forensic examination of Murphy’s cell phone revealed significant additional evidence of his involvement in dogfighting. This included multiple dog fighting videos and WhatsApp messages between Murphy and other individuals discussing elements of dog fighting. In one of the messages, Murphy expressed his anger over having animal control called to his property and the 25 years he invested in breeding and conditioning dogs, and asserting that he will “never never never” quit what he is doing with the dogs.

    In March 2024, the United States also filed a civil forfeiture complaint against 13 pit bull-type dogs, seized in June 2023 from Murphy’s residence and another residence in Townsend, Mass., that were possessed for participation in an animal fighting venture. In September and October 2024, the Court ordered the dogs to be forfeited to the United States.

    To report animal fighting crimes, please contact your local law enforcement or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General complaint hotline at: https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/hotline or 1-800-424-9121.

    U.S. Attorney Foley; ENRD Acting AAG Gustafson; USDA-OIG SAC Parker; Geoffrey D. Noble, Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police; and Karen L. LoStracco, Director of the Animal Rescue League of Boston – Law Enforcement Division made the announcement. Valuable assistance was provided by Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Marshal’s Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives; U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service; Maine State Police; New Hampshire State Police; Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor; Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and the Hanson, Boston and Acton Police Departments.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Danial E. Bennett and Kaitlin J. Brown of the Worcester Branch Office and Trial Attorney Matthew T. Morris of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Environmental Crimes Section, prosecuted the case. Carol E. Head, Chief of the Asset Recovery Unit for the District of Massachusetts and Trial Attorney Caitlyn F. Cook of ENRD’s Wildlife and Marine Resources Section are prosecuting the civil forfeiture case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Our ancestors didn’t eat 3 meals a day. So why do we?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Culinary Arts & Gastronomy, Auckland University of Technology

    Shutterstock

    Pop quiz: name the world’s most famous trio? If you’re a foodie, then your answer might have been breakfast, lunch and dinner. It’s an almost universally accepted trinity – particularly in the Western world.

    But how did it come about?

    The first meals

    Early humans were nomadic. Forming small communities, they would travel with the seasons, following local food sources.

    While we can only guess what daily mealtimes rhythms looked like, evidence dating back 30,000 years from the South Moravia region, Czech Republic, shows people visited specific settlements time and again. They gathered around hearths, cooking and sharing food: the first signs of human “commensality”, the practice of eating together.

    One of the best-preserved hunter-gatherer sites we’ve found is Ohalo II – located on the shores of the modern-day Sea of Galilee (also called Lake Tiberias or Lake Kinneret) in Israel, and dating back some 23,000 years.

    In addition to several small dwellings with hearths, it provides evidence of diverse food sources, including more than 140 types of seeds and nuts, and various birds, fish and mammals.

    The development of agricultural knowledge some 12,000 years ago gave rise to permanent settlements. The earliest were in the Levant region (across modern-day Iraq, southwestern Iran and eastern Turkey), in an area called the “Fertile Crescent”.

    The fertile crescent covers the rich, biodiverse valleys of the Tigris, Euphrates and Jordan rivers.
    Shutterstock

    Permanent agriculture led to the production of a surplus of food. The ability to stay in one place with food on-hand meant the time it took to cook no longer mattered as much.

    It quickly became common to eat one light meal early in the day, followed by a larger hearth-prepared meal later on. The specific timings would have varied between groups.

    Eating together as a rule

    The communal nature of foraging and hunting, and later farming, meant humans almost always ate their meals in the company of others. In the ancient city-state of Sparta, in the 4th century BCE, these practices were codified as common main meals called syssitia (meaning “eating together”).

    These meals were consumed at the end of the day in communal dining halls. Food was served by young boys to tables of 15 or so men who lived together and fought in the same military division. The men gradually shared generational knowledge with the young boys, who themselves would join the tables by age 20.

    In the 5th century BCE, Greek historian Herodotus wrote about how syssitia evolved from a Spartan military practice to having deep political meaning in society. Similarly, Plato wrote common meals were an integral component of civil society, and that missing a meal without good reason was a civic offence.

    By dining in full view of the rest of society, citizens were compelled to maintain self-discipline. Mealtime was also an opportunity for social linkage, and important discussions ranging from business deals to politics.

    The eating habits of Spartan women are missing in the texts, although it is implied they ate at home.

    Bunches of lunches

    Counter to the tough Spartan way of life, the Romans enjoyed their main meal, cena, earlier in the day, followed by a lighter meal just before bed.

    The northern European tribes tended towards two larger meals per day, as more sustenance is required in colder climes. To the Vikings, these meals were known as dagmal and nattmal, or day meal and night meal. Nattmal was the cooked evening meal, while dagmal usually consisted of leftover nattmal with the addition of bread and beer or mead.

    In Australia, evidence suggests Aboriginal peoples tended toward a daily single meal, which aligns with the predominant method of cookery: slow-cooking with hot coals or rocks in an earth oven. This underground oven, used by Aboriginal and also Torres Strait Islander communities, was referred to as a kup murri or kap mauri by some groups.

    This is similar to other Indigenous preparations throughout the Pacific, such as the New Zealand Māori hāngī, Hawaiian imu, Fijian lovo, and even the Mayan píib.

    The once-daily meal would have been supplemented with snacks throughout the day.

    Three’s the magic number

    The timing of meals was heavily influenced by class structure, local climate and people’s daily activities. Practicality also played a part. Without reliable lighting, meals had to be prepared and eaten before dark. In settled parts of Northern Europe, this could be as early as 3pm.

    So how did we go from one or two main meals, to three? The answer may lie with the British Royal Navy.

    Since its inception in the 16th century, the navy served three regular meals to align with the shipboard routine. This included a simple breakfast of ship’s biscuits, lunch as the main meal, and dinner as more of a light supper.

    Some sources suggest the term “square meal” may have come from the square wooden trays meals were served in.

    Initially, sailors recieved a daily gallon of beer with meals. This was later changed to watered-down rum, the infamous ‘grog’, which is being handed out in this 1940 photo taken aboard HMS King George V.
    Imperial War Museums, CC BY-NC

    The Industrial Revolution, which started around 1760, arguably also played a role in formalising the concept of three specific mealtimes across the Western world.

    The cadence of breakfast, lunch and dinner matched the routine of the longer, standardised workdays. Workers ate breakfast and dinner at home, before and after work, while lunch was eaten with coworkers at a set time.

    With minimal breaks, and no time for snacking, three substantial meals became necessary.

    The fall of the holy trinity

    Today, many factors impact the time and frequency of our meals, from long work commutes to juggling hobbies and social obligations.

    The ways in which we eat and share food continue to evolve alongside our societies and cultures.
    Shutterstock

    The COVID pandemic also impacted how and what we eat, leading us to eat larger amounts of higher calorie foods. The rapid growth of delivery services also means a meal is no more than a few minutes away from most people.

    All of this has resulted in mealtimes becoming less rigid, with social meals such as brunch, elevenses and afternoon teas expanding how we connect over food. And mealtimes will continue to evolve as our schedules become ever more complicated.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Our ancestors didn’t eat 3 meals a day. So why do we? – https://theconversation.com/our-ancestors-didnt-eat-3-meals-a-day-so-why-do-we-250773

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia urgently needs to get serious about long-term climate policy – but there’s no sign of that in the election campaign

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

    The federal election should be an earnest contest over the fundamentals of Australia’s climate and energy policies.

    Strong global action on climate change is clearly in Australia’s long-term national interest. But it has fallen prey to US President Donald Trump’s disruption of the world order, which has drained global attention from other crucial issues, including climate change.

    The Trump administration’s anti-climate actions might energise some to counteract it, but its overall affect will be chilling.

    Election reality

    A comprehensive platform to strengthen and broaden Australian climate policy towards net zero is needed more than ever.

    But the political reality playing out in the election campaign is very different, with the overriding focus on the cost of living, and the usual emphasis on electoral tactics rather than long-term strategies.

    Even a policy like Labor’s subsidised home batteries is being framed as a hip-pocket measure, rather than as a small contribution to energy infrastructure.

    Likewise, the Coalition’s pledge to halve fuel excise is aimed squarely at easing price pressures at the pump. In fact, the policy would slightly delay progress towards low emissions transport.

    The vexed question of how to ensure sufficient gas supplies for south eastern Australia is also cloaked in energy affordability. We are already seeing industry push back against the Coalition’s policy to require gas companies to withhold a share of production for the domestic market.

    Off target

    Regardless of who wins the election, Australia’s 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 will be difficult to achieve unless there is a change of pace.

    The government’s projections assume sharp
    cuts during 2027–30. But national emissions have flatlined at around 28% below 2005 levels for four years.

    Labor will subsidise the cost of solar batteries if its re-elected on May 4.
    Kathie Nichols/Shutterstock

    Under the Paris Agreement, a 2035 target commitment is required this year. The Climate Change Authority will give its advice to the new government after the election. It has previously floated a reduction range of 65–75%

    This would be compatible with the global goal of keeping warming below 2°C. Yet it might look highly ambitious under current political and international circumstances.

    Renewables reloaded

    The shift from coal to clean energy sources in the power sector is well underway. In 2024, renewables accounted for 39% of the national energy market, three times the share a decade ago.

    But progress has slowed at the same time as older coal plants have become unreliable and costly to run.

    It is clear that the future of an affordable, secure power supply in Australia is mostly wind and solar, supported by energy storage and some gas.

    But progress needs to be much faster. Many renewable projects, transmission lines and also Snowy 2 energy storage, are behind schedule. This is due to supply chain constraints, regulatory clogging and community opposition.

    Blueprint for action

    Deep emission reductions can still be achieved over the next ten years, but only if we pull out all the stops. That would mean:

    • going much faster on electricity transition
    • strengthening incentives and regulation to cut industrial and resource sector emissions
    • getting serious about a transition to clean transport
    • meaningful action towards low-emissions agriculture including changes to land use.

    A re-elected Labor government would likely do more on renewable power, while also strengthening action on industrial and resource emissions through the Safeguard Mechanism.

    But more will be needed to prepare for the 2030s. If the Teals hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, they would push Labor to be more ambitious.

    By contrast, a Dutton government might dial back the existing ambition and adopt a lower 2035 target than labor.

    Nuclear means more coal

    The initial focus of the Coalition’s energy policy going into the campaign has been to build nuclear power stations.

    Nuclear power would be far more expensive than the alternatives, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for only a small share of future power supply. It would need enormous subsidies, probably through government ownership.

    Deployment would inevitably be a very long time off. The near term affect would be to delay the transition to more renewable energy.

    The Coalition’s modelling assumes ageing coal-fired power plants would keep running beyond their announced closure dates. That would mean burning more coal and keeping Australia’s national carbon emissions higher for longer.

    The future of resource exports is green

    Australia’s intrinsic interest in limiting climate change remains urgent. Our opportunity as a green commodity producer and exporter remains solid.

    Green industry policy has been on the rise under the Albanese government, through support for green hydrogen and green iron. But we will not be able to subsidise our way to greatness in clean export industries.

    What is needed is international green commodity markets for Australian supplies of green ammonia, iron and other products. This is best achieved through carbon pricing in commodity importing countries, coupled with border carbon adjustments which give exporters of cleanly produced products an edge in those markets.

    A strong Australian 2035 emissions target would help send a signal to investors and overseas markets that we are serious about the transition.

    A COP in Australia

    Australia has a strong chance of hosting the 2026 UN climate conference. Labor wants it, but the Coalition doesn’t.

    COP31 would be a big chance for Australia to demonstrate positive leadership. It would also create pressure to do more for developing countries, given the conference would be hosted jointly with Pacific island states.

    Disappointment is likely, as rich countries will probably fail to meet expectations. In any case, Australia will be pushed by our Pacific neighbours to do more on climate change.

    We could do with the encouragement.

    This is the fourth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

    Frank Jotzo leads various research projects on climate policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission, chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel and led the federal government’s Carbon Leakage Review.

    – ref. Australia urgently needs to get serious about long-term climate policy – but there’s no sign of that in the election campaign – https://theconversation.com/australia-urgently-needs-to-get-serious-about-long-term-climate-policy-but-theres-no-sign-of-that-in-the-election-campaign-250637

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor made plenty of promises at the last election. Did they deliver?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Rindert Algra-Maschio, PhD Candidate, Social and Political Sciences, Monash University

    Election promises are a mainstay of contemporary politics. Governments cite kept commitments as proof they can be trusted, while oppositions pounce on any failure to deliver.

    But beyond the politics, campaign pledges are also central to representative democracy. They telegraph what to expect from a party in government and create a moral obligation for it to follow through.

    Democratic governments across the globe fulfil, on average, roughly two-thirds of their promises, but most voters believe it is far fewer. Since voters will punish governments for breaking promises, it’s vital they have accurate information on their government’s record.

    We set out to provide Australians with that information through RMIT’s Election Promise Tracker. We assessed 66 major promises made by Labor before the last election.

    By presenting evidence through an interactive timeline that follows all the twists and turns since 2022, the tracker allows voters to form their own judgements during the 2025 campaign.

    Tracking election promises

    Our team compiled a long list of promises during the last election campaign by scouring public statements made by both major parties.

    For this, we kept to the definition of an “election promise” used by the Comparative Pledges Project, a research network that employs a common approach to studying promises.

    After the election, we narrowed Labor’s list to 66 promises — based on newsworthiness, coverage of policy areas and, later, feedback from the audience of ABC News.

    The tracker was originally launched as a project of RMIT ABC Fact Check, and it applies a methodology of fact-check journalism that prioritises impartiality and transparency.

    We laid out, from the start, the criteria by which we would eventually assess each promise, to ensure only those that could be assessed by the end of the electoral term were included.

    Three years on, we determined whether those criteria had been met, marking promises as “delivered”, “thwarted” or “broken”. In a few cases, some remain “in progress” or “stalled”.

    Mostly good news for the government

    Overall, the government delivered at least 46 of the promises (roughly 70%) we tracked. Many of these are in areas typically seen as Labor strengths.

    These include key promises in health and aged care, such as funding pay rises for aged care workers, requiring aged care homes to keep a registered nurse on site 24/7, and mandating minimum “care minutes” for their residents.

    On education, employment and social services, the government boosted childcare subsidies and increased workplace protections for gig workers. It also delivered funding for 450,000 fee-free TAFE places and for the states to hire 500 support workers for women in crisis.

    Integrity was a key theme of the 2022 election, and the government has since followed through on establishing an anti-corruption commission, delivering a royal commission into Robodebt and implementing all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report that fell within its remit.

    And on the all-important cost of living, Labor cut the maximum price for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) scripts, boosted payments for disabled veterans, increased the low-and-middle income tax offset by $420 and – following a Senate standoff with the Greens and Coalition — established a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.

    And some bad news

    But it was not all smooth sailing for the government. It failed to deliver on at least 14 pledges (roughly 20%), including a promise to increase real wages above pre-election levels. It’s pledged to address real wages through a submission to the Fair Work Commission this time around.

    Arguably, it was unlucky on defence spending. Despite injecting $10 billion over its first three years, Labor is poised to miss its target of spending “at least” 2% of gross domestic product on defence, due to an uptick in GDP.

    In other cases, the government never really got close. After promising to deliver 450 gigalitres of environmental water under the Murray Darling Basin Plan, it only managed 27.5GL.

    And some deadlines were simply missed, with the government belatedly establishing 50 urgent care clinics and introducing a new Pacific Engagement Visa.

    Among the most controversial issues was Labor’s restructuring of the stage three tax cuts, having previously pledged to implement the cuts exactly as the Coalition had formulated them. But polling showed voters may forgive the “breaking” of a pledge if they agree with the outcome.

    The government also retreated from its promise to establish a Makarrata Commission following the defeated Voice referendum, providing an example of how changed political circumstances can come to haunt promises made years earlier.

    Not always an easy answer

    Despite the best intentions, some promises don’t fit neatly into the “delivered” or “broken” binary.

    For example, Labor promised Australia would make a joint bid with Pacific Island countries to host a United Nations climate conference. But the government can’t formally submit a bid unless Turkey bows out of the race, meaning this pledge has been “thwarted”.

    And it remains to be seen whether households will receive a much-touted $275 cut to their annual electricity bill (on 2021 levels) by mid-2025. The necessary data won’t arrive until after the election, and Labor’s energy rebates have complicated the picture.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may not have delivered on “every single thing” he promised, but of the promises we tracked, far more were kept than broken.

    This suggests the Albanese government has performed on a fairly level footing with other comparative countries, as well as with the Gillard Labor government.

    But voters will have different views on which promises are most important, so as ever, it’s the details that matter.

    Lisa Waller receives funding from The Australian Research Council

    David Campbell and Frank Rindert Algra-Maschio do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Labor made plenty of promises at the last election. Did they deliver? – https://theconversation.com/labor-made-plenty-of-promises-at-the-last-election-did-they-deliver-251481

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyle, Jayapal, Khanna Demand Answers Over Unauthorized Military Strikes in Yemen by Trump Administration

    Source: US Representative Val Hoyle (OR-04)

    April 09, 2025

    For Immediate Release: April 9, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Representatives Val Hoyle (OR-04), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), and Ro Khanna (CA-17), are expressing major concerns over the lack of Congressional approval for U.S. military strikes in Yemen. 

    “The U.S. Constitution is clear: Congress holds the sole power to authorize offensive military action,” wrote the Members. “While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea, we call on your Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war.”

    Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President can only introduce U.S. forces into hostilities after a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress, or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under attack. Presently, no congressional authorization of military force exists for the recent hostilities carried out in Yemen, nor is there a declared national emergency. Senior Trump Administration officials even commented, in a non-secure Signal chat, that these strikes could have waited “a few weeks or a month,” making clear there was ample time to consult with Congress and obtain the necessary authorization before initiating these attacks.

    “Congress must have the opportunity to engage in a robust debate on the rationale for offensive force and vote on its merits before U.S. servicemembers are placed in harm’s way and additional taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another Middle East war,” continued the Members. “No president has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”

    The Administration should be aware of its lack of authority in this matter, as the War Powers Resolution was used in 2019 to compel them to suspend midair refueling for Saudi airstrikes over Yemen. 

    “President Trump’s reckless strikes in Yemen are illegal, counterproductive and dangerous,” said Cavan Kharrazian, Senior Policy Advisor for Demand Progress. “We’re grateful to Representatives Jayapal, Khanna and Hoyle for once again leading the charge to reassert Congress’s war powers—just as they did during the Biden administration. What is clear: Trump must come to Congress for a debate and vote before engaging in further hostilities. This unauthorized military action is killing civilians, costing nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money, emboldening the Houthis and is threatening to create a ground war in a country already shattered by conflict and humanitarian crisis. Upholding congressional authority over matters of war is not a partisan issue; it’s a constitutional imperative and one of the most critical checks on executive power.”

    “Presidents have spent decades undermining Congress’s constitutional authority to declare or otherwise authorize wars, but with President Trump’s authoritarian approach to governance, the stakes are higher than ever,” said Jon Rainwater, Executive Director of Peace Action. “We applaud the members of Congress who signed this critical letter. Their leadership is essential in reining in this open-ended military adventure in Yemen, which is exacerbating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Congress must step up and reassert its oversight over the use of U.S. military before the president engages in even more reckless military adventurism abroad — or potentially even repression at home.”

    “The U.S. airstrikes on Yemen are making a humanitarian crisis worse,” said Isaac Evans-Frantz, Director of Action Corps. “Congress never authorized these attacks, and members of Congress should use their power to stop them.”

    “The U.S. bombing of Yemen contributes to the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of innocent lives, and the deepening of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises—all without congressional authorization,” said Aisha Jumaan, President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation. “I urge Congress to support the War Powers Resolution to end any unauthorized U.S. military involvement in Yemen. It is time for the United States to support accountability, prioritize diplomacy, and play a constructive role in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people.”

    The full text of the letter can be read here. 

    The letter has been signed by Becca Balint (VT-AL), Donald S. Beyer (VA-08), Greg Casar (TX-35), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Summer L. Lee (PA-12), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Jennifer L. McClellan (VA-04), James P. McGovern (MA-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Linda T. Sánchez (CA-38), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), Maxine Waters (CA-43), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

    It is also endorsed by Action Corps, American Friends Service Committee, Antiwar.com, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, Brooklyn For Peace, Center for International Policy Advocacy, DAWN, Demand Progress, Emgage Action, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Health Advocacy International, Historians for Peace and Democracy, Just Foreign Policy, L.I. Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, Massachusetts Peace Action, MPower Change Action Fund, National Iranian American Council, NorCal Sabeel, North Country Peace Group, Peace Action, Peace Action New York State, Peace, Justice, Sustainability, NOW!, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, The Libertarian Institute, United for Peace and Justice, WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Western New York Peace Center, Win Without War, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, and Yemeni Alliance Committee.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Secretary of State Denny Hoskins Honors Victim Advocates, Highlights “Safe at Home” Program at State Capitol Ceremony

    Source: US State of Missouri

     

     

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    April 9, 2025

    Secretary of State Denny Hoskins Honors Victim Advocates, Highlights “Safe at Home” Program at State Capitol Ceremony

    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Office of Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins joined state leaders, service providers, and survivors at the State Capitol to recognize the courage of victims and the critical work of those who support them during Missouri’s annual “Crime Victims’ Rights Week” ceremony.

    The ceremony, held Tuesday in the Capitol Rotunda, brought together a wide range of organizations committed to supporting victims of crime. Secretary Hoskins was proud to note the inclusion of the Secretary of State’s Safe at Home address confidentiality program among the honored services.

    “It was truly an honor for our Safe at Home program to be included alongside so many dedicated victim support services from across Missouri,” Secretary Hoskins said. “For nearly two decades, Safe at Home has helped survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and similar crimes protect their addresses and regain peace of mind. Being part of today’s ceremony underscores how vital this program is to helping Missourians feel safe and secure.”

    Safe at Home, administered by the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office since 2007, provides participants with a designated mailing address and free mail-forwarding services, helping keep their actual location confidential from abusers or potential threats. The program has served over 10,000 victims.

    Hoskins also expressed gratitude to the advocates and organizations who work tirelessly to ensure that survivors of crime have access to resources, legal protections, and support networks.

    “This ceremony serves as a powerful reminder of the strength of survivors and the importance of standing together as a state to support them,” Hoskins said. “We remain committed to expanding access to tools like Safe at Home, and to working alongside our partners in victim advocacy to ensure Missouri is a safer place for all.”

    For more information about the Safe at Home program, visit www.sos.mo.gov/safeathome.

     

    About Secretary of State Denny Hoskins

    Denny Hoskins, CPA, was elected Missouri’s 41st Secretary of State in November 2024. With a strong background in business and public service, he is committed to improving government efficiency, transparency, and supporting Missouri families.

     

    For more information, please contact: Rachael Dunn, Director of Communications, via email at [email protected]

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Prior Felon Convicted of Unlawfully Possessing a Firearm and Ammunition

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    TULSA, Okla. – A federal jury today convicted Prophet Kelly Lamar Clark, 52, of Tulsa, of Felon in Possession of a Firearm 
    and Ammunition. 

    According to evidence presented at trial, in October 2024, Tulsa Police officers responded to a 911 call about a suspect with a gun. The physical description provided to law enforcement was later identified as Clark.

    When the first officer arrived, they saw Clark walking away from the caller’s home. The officer testified that Clark was on the phone, with a pair of keys and a loaded magazine in his right hand. When the officer asked Clark if he had a weapon, he did not respond. While Clark was being placed in handcuffs, the officer pointed out the magazine in Clark’s hand and asked again if he had a firearm on him. Clark told the officer, “right,” implying the firearm was on his right side.

    The evidence presented to the jury showed the purple handgun taken into custody, which was on Clark’s right side. The officer further testified that he confirmed Clark’s identity, and records showed that Clark was a convicted felon.

    Court records show that in 2011, Clark pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled drug in state court, driving without a driver’s license, and improper tail lamps. He was sentenced to a five-year deferred sentence, which was ultimately accelerated to a conviction, where Clark was placed on probation.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Tulsa Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mallory Richard and Jessica Wright prosecuted the case.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit Justice.gov/PSN.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man Sentenced to Federal Prison After Discharging a Firearm in Neighborhood in Dubuque

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    A convicted felon who discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood in Dubuque, Iowa, in April 2024 was sentenced on April 8, 2025, to three years in federal prison.

    Datreon Adams, age 30, from Dubuque, Iowa, received the prison term after a September 19, 2024, guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At the plea and sentencing hearings, Adams admitted to unlawfully possessing a firearm.  Information at those hearings showed that Adams drove through a Dubuque neighborhood discharging the firearm before returning to his motel.  Officers subsequently located the firearm in Adams’ motel room and determined he was a felon.  Adams did not strike anyone or anything while discharging the firearm.

    Adams was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Judge Leonard T. Strand.  Adams was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.  He must also serve a two-year term of supervised release after the prison term.  There is no parole in the federal system.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

    Adams is being held in the United States Marshal’s custody until he can be transported to federal prison.

    The case was prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Michael S.A. Hudson and investigated by the Dubuque Police Department, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.  

    Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

    The case file number is 24-CR-1023.

    Follow us on X @USAO_NDIA.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: SUNation Energy Strengthens Financial Position Via Recently Completed Financings and Debt Reduction    

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    RONKONKOMA, N.Y., April 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SUNation Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: SUNE) (“SUNation” or “the Company”), a leading provider of sustainable solar energy and backup power solutions for households, businesses, and municipalities, today announced that recently completed capital transactions have allowed the Company to materially deliver its balance sheet, improve future cash flows, and enhance its financial flexibility to pursue its long-term growth objectives.

    As previously announced, the Company raised approximately $20.0 million in aggregate gross proceeds via a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional investors (“the Offering”), which closed in separate tranches in February 2025 and April 2025, respectively. Using a portion of the proceeds from the Offering, the Company has eliminated approximately $12.6 million of secured debt and other long-term contractual obligations.

    Primary among these obligations was the previously announced repayment in full of $9.4 million in senior and junior secured loans, eliminating all monthly payment obligations and removing an average annual cash drain of approximately $3.4 million through 2027.

    Today, the Company announced that on April 7, 2025 it paid an aggregate $2.1 million of earnout consideration associated with the November 2022 acquisition of SUNation Solar Systems, Inc. and five of its affiliated entities (SUNation Commercial, Inc., SUNation Service, Inc., SUNation Electric, Inc., SUNation Energy, LLC, and SUNation Roofing, LLC) by Pineapple Energy Inc. (now known as SUNation Energy, Inc.). Following this recent payment, the total earnout consideration of $2.5 million is paid in full.

    “We are very proud to have executed on these debt reduction initiatives, which reflect our commitment to meeting SUNation’s financial obligations while strengthening our financial profile and capital base,” said Scott Maskin, Chief Executive Officer. “This reduction in debt has produced material benefits including lowering our annual interest expense, while enhancing cash flows that provide the flexibility necessary to invest appropriately in our long-term expansion and/or other strategic options. Given the timing of the closing of the offering and associated payments, these benefits will initially be reflected in our results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025.”
      
    The Company also announced that it expects to file its Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2024 on or before April 15, 2025. In connection with this filing, the Company will provide additional information regarding its results, recent events and business strategy, as well as its plans to address investors.

    About SUNation Energy, Inc.

    SUNation Energy, Inc. is focused on growing leading local and regional solar, storage, and energy services companies nationwide. Our vision is to power the energy transition through grass-roots growth of solar electricity paired with battery storage. Our portfolio of brands (SUNation, Hawaii Energy Connection, E-Gear) provide homeowners and businesses of all sizes with an end-to-end product offering spanning solar, battery storage, and grid services. SUNation Energy, Inc.’s largest markets include New York, Florida, and Hawaii, and the company operates in three (3) states.

    Forward Looking Statements 

    Our prospects here at SUNation Energy Inc. are subject to uncertainties and risks. This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. The Company intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbor provided by the foregoing Sections. These forward-looking statements are based largely on the expectations or forecasts of future events, can be affected by inaccurate assumptions, and are subject to various business risks and known and unknown uncertainties, a number of which are beyond the control of management. Therefore, actual results could differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. The Company cannot predict or determine after the fact what factors would cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements or other statements. The reader should consider statements that include the words “believes”, “expects”, “anticipates”, “intends”, “estimates”, “plans”, “projects”, “should”, or other expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events or trends, to be uncertain and forward-looking. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events or otherwise. Additional information respecting factors that could materially affect the Company and its operations are contained in the Company’s filings with the SEC which can be found on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

    Contacts:
    Scott Maskin
    Chief Executive Officer
    +1 (631) 823-7131
    smaskin@sunation.com

    SUNation Energy Investor Relations
    IR@sunation.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: New Trump administration executive order targeting state climate laws is a quid pro quo

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    A bold “Make Polluters Pay” projection lit up Houston during CERAWeek—the fossil fuel industry’s so-called “Super Bowl”—calling out Big Oil for its central role in driving the climate crisis. The campaign demands that the industry not only be held accountable for past damage, but also be forced to fund the costs of preparing our communities for the escalating impacts of climate change. © Greenpeace

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 9, 2025)– In response to the Trump administration’s executive order directing the Department of Justice to take aim at state climate laws and lawsuits, John Noël, Greenpeace USA Deputy Climate Program Director, said: “This is a pathetic and dangerous attempt by a desperate industry to cling to power while communities suffer. From the Gulf Coast to the Los Angeles area, people are being slammed by floods, wildfires, and record heat. But instead of helping Americans, Trump is launching a political attack on states that are trying to create a livable future for their people.

    “This order isn’t about ‘freedom’ or ‘energy independence’ — it’s about Big Oil CEOs using the federal government to crush states’ rights when it aligns with their fossil fuel agenda. It’s also a convenient distraction from the economic sabotage of working families and the fossil fuel industry’s covert push for blanket immunity in Congress from all climate accountability.

    “Fossil fuel companies have profited off the backs of everyday people for far too long and we have the chance to make them pay to clean up their mess. Right now, states should be leaning into climate superfund legislation, not away from it. Nothing in this order prevents states from doing so. And the many states that are already considering these types of bills, like California, should be passing them expeditiously.”

    Contact: Katie Nelson, Greenpeace USA Senior Communications Specialist, [email protected], +1 (678) 644-1681

    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: Jayapal, Deluzio, Ryan, Craig Launch Monopoly Busters Caucus

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Pat Ryan (NY-18), and Angie Craig (MN-02) are today launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus, a new caucus with nine Founding Members to fight corporate greed and promote a pro-worker, pro-consumer, and pro-small business economic agenda. 

    “Something is wrong in this country when families go to the grocery store and can’t afford milk or eggs or cereal. As people struggle under the weight of inflation, corporate profits are higher than ever,” said Jayapal. “From rent to groceries, to health care — life in America has become unaffordable. The answer to why is simple: corporate monopolies. When we take on corporate power, we can make a meaningful difference in the everyday lives of working people across the country – and we must, the American people are counting on us.”

    “Monopolies have been rigging the system, crushing competition and small businesses, and ripping off the American people for decades. And for too long, politicians in Congress have let it happen,” said Congressman Deluzio. “We’re launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus today because we think that it’s long overdue for Congress to step up to take on consolidated corporate power and to reinvigorate American capitalism with competition. It’s our duty to help take the squeeze off of America’s workers, small businesses, and consumers and pave a path back to the American Dream. It’s time to get real, patriotic competition back in our economy.” 

    “When I talk with folks in the Hudson Valley, the number one thing I hear is frustration. Frustration that even though they’re working hard and doing everything that’s asked of them, they can’t afford to provide for their family – housing, health care, gas, groceries, utilities. It’s inherently un-American that only a select few are able to live out the American dream,” said Congressman Pat Ryan. “The reason for this is clear – in every one of those industries, we’ve let monopolies drive up costs and drive down quality, all while making record breaking profits. We’re gonna fight back against these big and powerful corporations, hold the bad actors accountable, and ultimately put power back where it belongs: with the American people.”

    “As the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, I have seen firsthand how consolidation in the ag industry is squeezing our family farmers and producers – and driving up costs for consumers too,” said Rep. Craig. “At a time when the Administration is launching our country headfirst into a global trade war, it’s more important than ever that we uplift small and local businesses right here at home. I’m proud to be joining Representatives Jayapal, Ryan and Deluzio to fight consolidation, strengthen the middle class and lower costs for producers and consumers.”  

    Throughout the pandemic and the inflation that followed, there was consistent reporting of large corporations price-gouging consumers, something they could do thanks to near-monopoly consolidation in many industries. For instance, in the cases of beef, baby food, pasta, and soda, more than 80 percent of the market is controlled by four companies. Rigorous enforcement of our antitrust laws can fix this consolidation and ensure that our markets work for all people. 

    The Caucus’s founding Members represent a large swath of the ideological makeup of the Democratic Party, highlighting the unity around a strong economic prosperity message. Joining the co-chairs in founding the Caucus are Becca Balint (VT-AL), Greg Casar (TX-35), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Kristen MacDonald Rivet (MI-08), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07).

    The full livestreamed launch event can be watched here.

    Issues: Science, Technology, & Antitrust

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal, Khanna, Hoyle Demand Answers Over Unauthorized Military Strikes in Yemen by Trump Administration

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ro Khanna (CA-17), and Val Hoyle (OR-04) are expressing major concerns over the lack of Congressional approval for U.S. military strikes in Yemen. 

    “The U.S. Constitution is clear: Congress holds the sole power to authorize offensive military action,” wrote the Members. “While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea, we call on your

    Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war.”

    Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President can only introduce U.S. forces into hostilities after a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress, or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under attack. Presently, no congressional authorization of military force exists for the recent hostilities carried out in Yemen, nor is there a declared national emergency. Senior Trump Administration officials even commented, in a non-secure Signal chat, that these strikes could have waited “a few weeks or a month,” making clear there was ample time to consult with Congress and obtain the necessary authorization before initiating these attacks.

    “Congress must have the opportunity to engage in a robust debate on the rationale for offensive force and vote on its merits before U.S. servicemembers are placed in harm’s way and additional taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another Middle East war,” continued the Members. “No president has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”

    The Administration should be aware of its lack of authority in this matter, as the War Powers Resolution was used in 2019 to compel them to suspend midair refueling for Saudi airstrikes over Yemen. 

    “President Trump’s reckless strikes in Yemen are illegal, counterproductive and dangerous,” said Cavan Kharrazian, Senior Policy Advisor for Demand Progress. “We’re grateful to Representatives Jayapal, Khanna and Hoyle for once again leading the charge to reassert Congress’s war powers—just as they did during the Biden administration. What is clear: Trump must come to Congress for a debate and vote before engaging in further hostilities. This unauthorized military action is killing civilians, costing nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money, emboldening the Houthis and is threatening to create a ground war in a country already shattered by conflict and humanitarian crisis. Upholding congressional authority over matters of war is not a partisan issue; it’s a constitutional imperative and one of the most critical checks on executive power.”

    “Presidents have spent decades undermining Congress’s constitutional authority to declare or otherwise authorize wars, but with President Trump’s authoritarian approach to governance, the stakes are higher than ever,” said Jon Rainwater, Executive Director of Peace Action. “We applaud the members of Congress who signed this critical letter. Their leadership is essential in reining in this open-ended military adventure in Yemen, which is exacerbating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Congress must step up and reassert its oversight over the use of U.S. military before the president engages in even more reckless military adventurism abroad — or potentially even repression at home.”

    “The U.S. airstrikes on Yemen are making a humanitarian crisis worse,” said Isaac Evans-Frantz, Director of Action Corps. “Congress never authorized these attacks, and members of Congress should use their power to stop them.”

    “The U.S. bombing of Yemen contributes to the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of innocent lives, and the deepening of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises—all without congressional authorization,” said Aisha Jumaan, President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation. “I urge Congress to support the War Powers Resolution to end any unauthorized U.S. military involvement in Yemen. It is time for the United States to support accountability, prioritize diplomacy, and play a constructive role in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people.”

    The full text of the letter can be read here. 

    The letter has been signed by Becca Balint (VT-AL), Donald S. Beyer (VA-08), Greg Casar (TX-35), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Summer L. Lee (PA-12), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Jennifer L. McClellan (VA-04), James P. McGovern (MA-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Linda T. Sánchez (CA-38), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), Maxine Waters (CA-43), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

    It is also endorsed by Action Corps, American Friends Service Committee, Antiwar.com, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, Brooklyn For Peace, Center for International Policy Advocacy, DAWN, Demand Progress, Emgage Action, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Health Advocacy International, Historians for Peace and Democracy, Just Foreign Policy, L.I. Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, Massachusetts Peace Action, MPower Change Action Fund, National Iranian American Council, NorCal Sabeel, North Country Peace Group, Peace Action, Peace Action New York State, Peace, Justice, Sustainability, NOW!, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, The Libertarian Institute, United for Peace and Justice, WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Western New York Peace Center, Win Without War, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, and Yemeni Alliance Committee.

    Issues: Foreign Affairs & National Security

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sherrill Presses Top Department of Defense Officials on Trump’s Dangerous Appeasement of Russian President Putin

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)

    Watch Rep. Sherrill’s questioning here

    WASHINGTON, DC — Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), former Navy helicopter aircraft commander and Russian policy officer, and member of the House Armed Services Committee, pressed Department of Defense leadership this week on Trump’s dangerous appeasement of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. 

    “Right now, Donald Trump is abandoning our ally Ukraine and threatening to remove American troops stationed in Europe while Russian President Vladimir Putin is rebuilding and strengthening his own military. Allowing Russia’s military to grow unchecked will put the lives of American service members in danger, jeopardize America’s global supply chains, and risk America’s partnerships with our democratic allies and partners worldwide,” said Rep. Sherrill. 

    Sherrill has been at the forefront of House efforts to support Ukraine since the beginning of Putin’s brutal invasion. She spoke directly with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in Kyiv and while representing the United States as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to the Munich Security Conference. New Jersey is home to one of the largest Ukrainian-American populations in the country and Congresswoman Sherrill continues to work closely with community leaders to support Ukraine. 

    Congresswoman Sherrill is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and served in the Navy for almost 10 years as a helicopter pilot and Russian policy officer. As a Russian policy officer, she worked on implementing our nuclear treaty obligations and oversaw the relationship between the US Navy and Russian Federation Navy. She now serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the new House Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: New York Stands With Survivors

    Source: US State of New York

    uring National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, and Child Abuse Prevention Month, Governor Kathy Hochul today announced 14 State landmarks will be lit blue tonight to raise awareness of the state’s prevention efforts to protect children and families. Governor Hochul previously issued a proclamation recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New York State.

    “My top priority is ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all New Yorkers – especially our children,” Governor Hochul said. “By working together, we can ensure every child has the opportunity to thrive in a safe and nurturing environment. I am committed to elevating the voices of survivors, and supporting families and advocates, as well as law enforcement, as we work to advance bold initiatives to prevent child abuse in New York State.”

    This year’s theme for the month is “Supporting Child and Family Well-Being” to highlight key prevention tools that can help assist and strengthen families, ultimately preventing child abuse and neglect. Among those tools are Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers located throughout New York State, and the OCFS HEARS helpline.

    Office of Children and Family Services Commissioner Dr. DaMia Harris-Madden said, “OCFS is dedicated to supporting evidence-based and innovative initiatives to prevent child abuse through prevention services and supports that fortify families and foster healthy environments for children. We are fortunate to live in a state where our Governor proactively leads from the heart and mind, unequivocally supporting the protection of all New Yorkers, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. Governor Hochul’s many commitments include investments in the Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers, located throughout the state. These centers are intended to empower families and improve protective factors such as parental resilience, social connections, and access to resources.”

    In addition to issuing the proclamation, Governor Hochul directed that 14 State landmarks and buildings be illuminated in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

    The landmarks and buildings illuminated tonight, April 9, include:

    • One World Trade Center
    • Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge
    • Kosciuszko Bridge
    • The H. Carl McCall SUNY Building
    • State Education Building
    • Alfred E. Smith State Office Building
    • Empire State Plaza
    • State Fairgrounds – Main Gate & Expo Center
    • Niagara Falls
    • The “Franklin D. Roosevelt” Mid-Hudson Bridge
    • Albany International Airport Gateway
    • MTA LIRR – East End Gateway at Penn Station
    • Fairport Lift Bridge over the Erie Canal
    • Moynihan Train Hall

    Governor Hochul continues to support family and childhood initiatives designed to increase protective factors that reduce the risk of child abuse or maltreatment. In her 2025-2026 Executive Budget, Governor Hochul proposed a $9.2 million increase in funding for the New York State Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) – more than double the previous annual funding. Child Advocacy Centers provide a child-friendly, safe, supportive environment for child victims of abuse/neglect and their non-offending caretakers.

    Additionally, New York State has continued to support Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers, which are located at nonprofit social services organizations and public schools and aim to improve family well-being by enhancing social connections, knowledge of parenting and child development, and parental resilience, and by providing concrete supports such as food assistance, housing support and connections to quality physical and mental health care. The Family Opportunity Centers launched through a collaboration between OCFS and the New York State Education Department (NYSED).

    In addition, another key prevention and family strengthening tool is the OCFS HEARS line (Help, Empower, Advocate, Reassure and Support), which is designed to connect families to community resources offering help with housing, food, health care and more. Anyone can call 1-888-55HEARS (1-888-554-3277) Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m.– 4:30 p.m.

    About the New York State Office of Children and Family Services
    The Office of Children and Family Services serves New York’s public by promoting the safety, permanency and well-being of children, families and communities. The agency provides a system of family support, juvenile justice, youth development, child care and child welfare services and is responsible for programs and services involving foster care, adoption and adoption assistance, child protective services, preventive services for children and families, and protective programs for vulnerable adults.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Sand Beach — RCMP charges one person after responding to barricaded man

    Source: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

    Yarmouth Rural RCMP Detachment has charged a man who was in possession of a firearm while barricaded in a home in Sand Beach.

    On April 7 at approximately 11:20 pm, RCMP responded to a report of a man in possession of a firearm who had assaulted a woman. The two were inside a home on Wyman Rd.

    The woman, along with another male occupant, were able to exit the home safely. When police arrived, the man was the only person in the house. He had barricaded himself inside a room and refused to exit.

    The Nova Scotia RCMP Emergency Response Team and RCMP Police Dog Services (PDS) attended in addition to general duty officers.

    At approximately 3:45 a.m. on April 8, the man exited the home but refused to comply with officers’ directions. An officer deployed their conductive energy weapon, and the man was arrested with the assistance of PDS. He was transported to hospital by EHS for assessment of non-life-threatening injuries.

    Colin Outhouse, 50, of Sand Beach, is charged with Assault and Possession of a Weapon for Dangerous Purpose. He had a first court appearance on April 8 and was remanded into custody pending future court appearances.

    Also on April 8, investigators executed a search warrant at the home and seized a firearm.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union thought giving in to government demands would save their independence

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iveta Silova, Professor of Comparative and International Education, Arizona State University

    Columbia University has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
     Rudi Von Briel/Photodisc via Getty Images

    Many American universities, widely seen globally as beacons of academic integrity and free speech, are giving in to demands from the Trump administration, which has been targeting academia since it took office.

    In one of his first acts, President Donald Trump branded diversity, equity and inclusion programs as discriminatory. His administration also launched federal investigations into more than 50 universities, from smaller regional schools such as Grand Valley State University in Michigan and the New England College of Optometry in Massachusetts to elite private universities such as Harvard and Yale.

    Trump ramped up the pressure by threatening university research funding and targeting specific schools. In one example, the Trump administration revoked US$400 million in grants to Columbia University over its alleged failures to curb antisemitic harassment on campus. The school later agreed to most of Trump’s demands, from tightening student protest policies to placing an entire academic department under administrative oversight – though the funding remains frozen.

    Cornell, Northwestern, Princeton, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania have also recently had grants frozen. Harvard was sent a list of demands in order to keep $9 billion in federal funding.

    Now, across the United States, many universities are trying to avoid being Trump’s next target. Administrators are dismantling DEI initiatives – closing and rebranding offices, eliminating positions, revising training programs and sanitizing diversity statements – while professors are preemptively self-censoring.

    Not all institutions are complying. Some schools, such as Wesleyan, have refused to abandon their diversity principles. And organizations including the American Association of University Professors have filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive orders, arguing they violate academic freedom and the First Amendment.

    But these remain exceptions, as the broader trend leans toward institutional caution and retreat.

    As a scholar of comparative and international education, I study how academic institutions respond to authoritarian pressure – across political systems, cultural contexts and historical moments. While some universities may believe that compliance with the administration will protect their funding and independence, a few historical parallels suggest otherwise.

    Students and other Nazi supporters gather at Humboldt University in Berlin in 1933.
    AP Photo

    German universities: A lesson

    In the 1975 book “The Abuse of Learning: The Failure of German Universities,” historian Frederic Lilge chronicles how German universities, which entered the 20th century in a golden age of global intellectual influence, did not resist the Nazi regime but instead adapted to it.

    Even before seizing national power in 1933, the Nazi Party was closely monitoring German universities through nationalist student groups and sympathetic faculty, flagging professors deemed politically unreliable – particularly Jews, Marxists, liberals and pacifists.

    After Hitler took office in 1933, his regime moved swiftly to purge academic institutions of Jews and political opponents. The 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service mandated the firing of Jewish and other “non-Aryan” professors and members of the faculty deemed politically suspect.

    Soon after, professors were required to swear loyalty to Hitler, curricula were overhauled to emphasize “national defense” and “racial science” – a pseudoscientific framework used to justify antisemitism and Aryan supremacy – and entire departments were restructured to serve Nazi ideology.

    Some institutions, such as the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart, even rushed to honor Hitler with an honorary doctorate within weeks of his rise to power. He declined the offer, though the gesture signaled the university’s eagerness to align with the regime. Professional associations, such as the Association of German Universities, stayed silent, ignoring key opportunities to resist before universities lost their autonomy and became subservient to the Nazi state.

    As linguist Max Weinreich wrote in his 1999 book “Hitler’s Professors,” many academics didn’t just comply, they enabled the regime by reshaping their research. This legitimized state doctrine, helping build the intellectual framework of the regime.

    A few academics resisted and were dismissed, exiled or executed. Most did not.

    The transformation of German academia was not a slow drift but a swift and systemic overhaul. But what made Hitler’s orders stick was the eagerness of many academic leaders to comply, justify and normalize the new order. Each decision – each erased name, each revised syllabus, each closed program and department – was framed as necessary, even patriotic. Within a few years, German universities no longer served knowledge – they served power.

    It would take more than a decade after the war, through denazification, reinvestment and international reintegration, for West German universities to begin regaining their intellectual standing and academic credibility.

    Under Stalin, dissenting scholars were purged and history rewritten to glorify the Communist Party. Moscow State University opened in 1953 with murals such as this one depicting Soviet symbols.
    AP Photo/Zander Hollander

    USSR and fascist Italy suffer similar fate

    Other countries that have fallen under authoritarian regimes followed similar trajectories.

    In fascist Italy, the shift began not with violence but with a signature. In 1931, the Mussolini regime required all university professors to swear an oath of loyalty to the state. Out of more than 1,200, only 12 refused.

    Many justified their compliance by insisting the oath had no bearing on their teaching or research. But by publicly affirming loyalty and offering no organized resistance, the academic community signaled its willingness to accommodate the regime. This lack of opposition allowed the fascist government to tighten control over universities and use them to advance its ideological agenda.

    In the Soviet Union, this control was not limited to symbolic gestures – it reshaped the entire academic system.

    After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks oscillated between wanting to abolish universities as “feudal relics” and repurposing them to serve a socialist state, as historians John Connelly and Michael Grüttner explain in their book “Universities Under Dictatorship.” Ultimately, they chose the latter, remaking universities as instruments of ideological education and technical training, tightly aligned with Marxist-Leninist goals.

    Under Josef Stalin, academic survival depended less on scholarly merit than on conformity to official doctrine. Dissenting scholars were purged or exiled, history was rewritten to glorify the Communist Party, and entire disciplines such as genetics were reshaped to fit political orthodoxy.

    This model was exported across Eastern and Central Europe during the Cold War. In East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, ministries dictated curricula, Marxism-Leninism became mandatory across disciplines, and admissions were reengineered to favor students from loyalist backgrounds. In some contexts, adherents to older intellectual traditions pushed back, especially in Poland, where resistance slowed though could not prevent the imposition of ideological control.

    By the early 1950s, universities across the region had become what Connelly calls “captive institutions,” stripped of independence and recast to serve the state.

    A more recent example is Turkey, where, following the failed 2016 coup, more than 6,000 academics were dismissed, universities were shuttered and research deemed “subversive” was banned.

    History’s warning

    The Trump administration’s early and direct intervention into higher education governance echoes historical attempts to bring universities under state influence or control.

    The administration says it is doing so to eradicate “discrimatory” DEI policies and fight what it sees as antisemitism on college campuses. But by withholding federal funding, the administration is also trying to force universities into ideological conformity – by dictating whose knowledge counts but also whose presence and perspectives are permissible on campus.

    Columbia’s reaction to Trump’s demands sent a clear message: Resistance is risky, but compliance may be rewarded – though the $400 million has yet to be restored. The speed and scope of its concessions set a precedent, signaling to other universities that avoiding political fallout now may mean rewriting policies, reshaping departments and retreating from controversy, perhaps before anyone even asks.

    The Trump administration has already moved on to other universities, including the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender policies, Princeton for its climate programs and Harvard over alleged antisemitism. The question is which school is next.

    The Department of Education has launched investigations into over 50 institutions, accusing them of using “racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.” How these institutions choose to respond may determine whether higher education remains a space for open inquiry.

    The pressure to conform is not just financial – it is also cultural. Faculty at some institutions are being advised not to use “DEI” in emails and public communication, with warnings to not be a target. Academics are removing pronouns from their email signatures and asking their students to comply, too. I’ve been on the receiving end of those warnings, and so have my counterparts at other institutions. And students on visas are being warned not to travel outside the U.S. after several were deported or denied reentry due to alleged involvement in protests.

    Meanwhile, people inside and outside academia are combing websites, syllabi, presentations and public writing in search of what they consider ideological infractions. This type of peer surveillance can reward silence, incentivize erasure and turn institutions against their own.

    When universities start regulating not just what they say but what they teach, support and stand for – driven by fear rather than principle – they are no longer just reacting to political threats, they are internalizing them. And as history has shown, that may mark the beginning of the end of their academic independence.

    This article does not represent the views of Arizona State University.

    – ref. Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union thought giving in to government demands would save their independence – https://theconversation.com/universities-in-nazi-germany-and-the-soviet-union-thought-giving-in-to-government-demands-would-save-their-independence-252888

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court’s decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rebecca Hamlin, Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

    A prison officer guards a gate at the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, where hundreds of migrants from the United States were deported by the Trump administration. Alex Pena/Anadolu via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump has claimed victory at the Supreme Court in his campaign to deport Venezuelan migrants accused by the government of being part of a foreign terrorist organization.

    “The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump posted on April 7, 2025, calling it, “A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”

    A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court had just overruled a lower court that had temporarily barred the deportations, deciding the U.S. could move ahead with its plans to send those Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

    Eight minutes after Trump’s post, the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, three advocacy groups that represented the Venezuelan nationals in the case, also claimed the decision was a win.

    In a press release, lawyers from these organizations said that the case was “an important victory” in which the court determined that the “Trump administration acted unlawfully when it removed people from this nation with no process.”

    Can both sides legitimately say they won a Supreme Court victory?

    As professors of legal studies, we study the Supreme Court, including how the court approaches cases involving immigration law and presidential power.

    Here’s why both sides are claiming a win in the case known as Trump v. J.G.G., what the court’s opinion actually said, and what you can take away from it.

    The Supreme Court decision lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deportations imposed by James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
    Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

    Why both sides are claiming victory

    The complexity of the court’s per curiam opinion – an unsigned opinion of a majority of the court – allows the Trump administration and the ACLU to view the ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. from different perspectives.

    This has led them both to claim victory.

    Trump sees the case as a win because the justices vacated a lower court decision that had temporarily barred the deportation of the Venezuelans. This means that the federal government was victorious in the case: His administration does not have to immediately stop deporting Venezuelan nationals.

    At the same time, the ACLU claims the case is a victory for them because the Supreme Court’s opinion said that the government must give people the opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act – which the government had not done. The Venezuelans’ right to due process was one of the key arguments advanced by the ACLU and its partners.

    On April 9, judges in New York and Texas agreed, just two days after the Supreme Court’s decision, temporarily halting the deportation of five Venezuelans until the government can clarify what type of notice it will be giving to people it intends to deport.

    Eventually, the Supreme Court will need to speak definitively about whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport those it alleges to be part of a foreign terrorist organization. The court has not yet addressed that issue.

    This means the court will have to deal with some tricky questions down the road. These include whether a drug cartel can be said to be engaging in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” into the United States, which the Alien Enemies Act requires if it is to be invoked. Another issue is the extent to which the Alien Enemies Act can be used when Congress hasn’t declared war.

    And a big unanswered question is whether the Supreme Court, or any court, should even answer these questions at all. The political questions doctrine, which dates to 1803, is a principle saying that courts should avoid tackling thorny political questions that are best left to Congress or the president.

    Venezuelans deported from the U.S. sit aboard the plane as they arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on March 28, 2025.
    Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images

    What the court decided and what it means for noncitizens’ rights

    The court’s brief opinion, to which five members signed on, repeats the very basic constitutional premise that noncitizens are entitled to due process of law, even as they are being removed from the United States. Most significantly, due process includes the ability to protest their deportations before a court of law.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasized the idea that the disagreement between the majority and the dissents is not about whether the noncitizens should have the opportunity to challenge their removal; all nine justices agree they have that right. Rather, Kavanaugh said, the justices disagreed on the question of venue, meaning the location in which these challenges should occur.

    Kavanaugh’s focus on venue obscures the fact that what the justices granted to potential deportees is a significantly less robust type of judicial review than the one they were asking for.

    The Venezuelans were challenging their removal as a class, because Trump had declared in a presidential proclamation that all Venezuelans over the age of 14 who were believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua cartel “are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal.”

    The Supreme Court majority made a group-based approach much more difficult in its April 7 ruling. It allowed for only individual, case-by-case appeals in which each potential deportee must retain legal counsel, file what’s known as a habeas corpus petition challenging their detention, and then try to convince a judge in the district where they are being held that they are not a member of Tren de Aragua in order to prevent their removal.

    For most detainees, that would mean filing a petition in the Southern District of Texas, in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the most conservative federal circuit in the country.

    Unless more courts step in to prevent it, the impact of the decision will be more removals to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, perhaps of people who are not actually gang members, or even Venezuelan. This has already happened in the previous round of removals under this program.

    Further, at least 200 people have already been flown out of the U.S. to CECOT. Because they’ve been accused of no crime in El Salvador, they have no right to due process or legal counsel there, and no trial date set where they might prove their innocence. A recent CBS exposé also found that three-quarters of them had no criminal record in the United States either.

    In the meantime, there is a separate but related case of a man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador, despite having legal protection in the U.S. preventing his removal to his home country of El Salvador. The Trump administration is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that when it makes an error in the process of carrying out these removals, it does not have to correct it.

    Not all due process is created equal. The court’s April 7 decision allowing the bare minimum process protecting people being removed makes errors more likely and thus raises the stakes for the outcome of the Abrego Garcia case tremendously.

    Many parties have claimed victory in the Trump v. J.G.G. decision, but one thing is clear: It was a defeat for the rights of noncitizens in the United States.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Supreme Court’s decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-decision-on-deportations-gave-both-the-trump-administration-and-aclu-reasons-to-claim-a-victory-but-noncitizens-clearly-lost-254153

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Senate Democratic Caucus Send Letter Demanding Trump Rescind Illegal Executive Order Threatening Federal Employee Collective Bargaining Agreements

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Alsobrooks, Schumer, Kaine, and Warner and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus this week in urging President Trump to rescind his March 27 executive order to end collective bargaining agreements between public employee unions and dozens of federal agencies and bureaus. In their letter, the senators blasted the move as a “gross overreach” of presidential authority, asserting that the executive order is a clear attempt to gut the federal merit-based civil service and implement a system of political cronyism. They stressed that the order poses a grave threat to the ability of over 1 million federal workers to carry out their missions and deliver important services for the American people—and should be rescinded immediately.

    “We write today in outrage over your recent executive order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs… This order is an insult to the hardworking public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people,” the senators began.

    “The executive order effectively classifies two thirds of the federal workforce as having national security missions, a blatant misuse of a limited authority intended to provide operational flexibility to address legitimate security needs,” they continued. “There is no evidence that the long-standing collective bargaining agreements at these agencies have jeopardized our nation’s security in any way; to the contrary, the protection collective bargaining has provided for employees allows them to conduct their work on behalf of the American people—including blowing the whistle on fraud or abuse—without political interference.”

    “This Administration clearly does not have even a basic understanding of the legally binding nature of federal collective bargaining agreements and is actively trying to bend the law to undermine protections for federal civil servants. We urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order so that our dedicated public servants can continue to work on behalf of the American public without fear for their job or political retribution,” the senators concluded.

    The senators’ letter is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

    A copy of the letter is available here and below.

    Dear President Trump: 

    We write today in outrage over your recent executive order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, a gross overreach of the authority granted in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). 

    This order is an insult to the hardworking public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people. They care for our veterans, deliver disaster assistance, prevent wildfires, help farmers improve crop yields, manage health benefits for 9/11 first responders, research treatments and cures for diseases, keep air travel safe, process tax returns, staff our national parks and much, much more. Nearly one third of these dedicated civil servants are veterans seeking to continue their service to our country out of uniform.  

    The executive order effectively classifies two thirds of the federal workforce as having national security missions, a blatant misuse of a limited authority intended to provide operational flexibility to address legitimate security needs. The national security exemption has existed for nearly 50 years and has been used only sparingly by Republican and Democratic Administrations—including during your first term—to exclude federal offices with an unquestionable core function in intelligence, counterintelligence, or national security. There is no evidence that the long-standing collective bargaining agreements at these agencies have jeopardized our nation’s security in any way; to the contrary, the protection collective bargaining has provided for employees allows them to conduct their work on behalf of the American people—including blowing the whistle on fraud or abuse—without political interference. 

    Federal employees’ collective bargaining agreements are critical to ensuring they continue to serve the American people with the peace of mind that comes with being protected from unfair labor practices. Unlike in the private sector, federal employee unions in most cases cannot negotiate pay or benefits, which are set by Congress, and they are legally prohibited from striking. The federal collective bargaining agreements do, however, protect federal employees from illegal firings, retaliation, and discrimination. They also promote resources for whistleblowers and veterans. These federal union contracts give employees in the civil service protections from retaliation so they can serve the American people fairly and effectively without partisan political interference.  

    This executive order, which ruthlessly strips collective bargaining agreements for over one million federal workers, is the most recent attack your Administration has levied against our merit-based civil service in the effort to cut the workforce and replace them with political cronies. While the CSRA does give the president the authority to limit collective bargaining agreements due to national security concerns, the executive order’s direction to terminate mass swaths of federal employee collective bargaining agreements is clearly intended to broadly dismantle the CSRA, which is specifically designed to grant federal employees the right to collective bargaining as a means to resolve workplace issues while maintaining the smooth functioning of government operations.  

    When the Secretary of Labor testified in February in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Members of Congress asked her both in-person and through questions for the record whether she and the Administration would commit to honoring all legally binding collective bargaining agreements signed by federal agencies and labor unions, and whether federal employees have the right to organize and collectively bargain without fear of retaliation. The Secretary answered, “if confirmed, I will follow the law and work with the experts at the Department to understand the collective bargaining process at the Department and the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreements in place.” This Administration clearly does not have even a basic understanding of the legally binding nature of federal collective bargaining agreements and is actively trying to bend the law to undermine protections for federal civil servants.  

    We urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order so that our dedicated public servants can continue to work on behalf of the American public without fear for their job or political retribution.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: March proves deadly month for civilians in Ukraine

    Source: United Nations 4

    Human Rights

    More than three years on from the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian civilians continue to face the devastating consequences of war, with March 2025 proving to be another deadly month.

    “The near daily barrage of long-range drones killed and injured scores of civilians across the country last month, and disrupted life for millions more,” said the head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), Danielle Bell, in the independent human rights team’s latest monthly update.  

    The mission was mandated by the UN human rights chief at the invitation of the Ukrainian Government in 2014, to help safeguard rights during the escalating conflict.  

    With at least 164 Ukrainians killed and 910 injured, March 2025 saw a 50 per cent spike in civilian casualties from the previous month. These numbers represent a 71 per cent increase in civilian casualties compared with March last year, says the latest HRMMU Protection of Civilians Report.

    Russian attacks on cities such as Dnipro, Kharkiv, and Sumy, combined with multiple munitions strikes on Dobropillia, exacerbated the high number of casualties in March.  

    Kryvyi Rih, located around 65 kilometers from the frontline, was one of the places most heavily affected, suffering five waves of Russian attacks which killed at least six civilians and injured 66.  

    Civilian buildings in the city – home town of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – including two hotels and a restaurant, were amongst the sites hit.  

    Some 29 medical and 50 educational facilities were damaged by Russian armed forces during last month, while two medical centres and six educational facilities were totally destroyed.  

    “Hospitals enjoy special protection under international humanitarian law and should not be subjected to attack,” Ms. Bell said.

    Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited under international humanitarian law, said UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, emphasising that parties to a conflict ought to differentiate military from civilian infrastructures.  

    Hostilities continue  

    UN Human Rights in Ukraine noted that deadly attacks by Russian armed forces continued into April. “It’s an unimaginable horror,” said Mr. Türk, referring to an April 4 attack where a ballistic missile detonated over a playground, killing 19 civilians, including nine children.  

    Another wave of attacks in Eastern Ukraine caused damage to residential buildings and injured scores of civilians on Wednesday. Aid workers are currently on the ground assessing the needs of the affected population.  

    “Ukrainians deserve to live a normal life, free from violence,” said UN aid coordination office, OCHA, in Ukraine.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: B.C. makes heat pumps more affordable for people with low incomes

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    The Province is making electric heat pumps more affordable for low- and moderate-income households, including renters and those who live in multi-unit residential buildings.

    “Every British Columbian deserves reliable, affordable, and clean heating and cooling. Since our government started providing incentives for people to make the switch to heat pumps, we’ve seen a huge uptake across the province, but cost is still a barrier for many,” said Adrian Dix, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. “That’s why we’re prioritizing funding to make clean-energy solutions and year-round comfort accessible to British Columbians who need them most, including for owners and renters who live in multi-unit buildings.”

    The CleanBC Energy Savings Program, launched in June 2024, is funded through the Province and leverages contributions from BC Hydro and the federal government to support greater access to home energy retrofits for low- to moderate-income households, including renters. The successful program, which supports the installation of affordable heat pumps for income-qualified, single-family homes, will expand to include individual suites in multi-unit residential buildings starting mid-2025.

    With $50 million in each of the next two fiscal years – 2025-26 and 2026-27 – the Province plans to deliver as many as 8,300 new heat pump rebates to British Columbians. Households in individual suites in multi-unit residential buildings could be eligible for up to $5,500 for a ductless mini-split heat pump. In addition, the Province will partner with BC Hydro and FortisBC to expand their Energy Conservation Assistance Program to offer heat-pump installations to the lowest-income households in single-family homes and individual suites.

    “Heat pumps provide year-round comfort with efficient cooling in the summer and heat in the winter, and they can be up to 300% more efficient than electric baseboard heating,” said Chris O’Riley, president and CEO, BC Hydro. “We are pleased the Province will partner with BC Hydro and FortisBC to expand their Energy Conservation Assistance Program as we work to ensure more British Columbians have access to heat pump technology.”

    In September 2024, the Province launched a Multi-Unit Residential Building Retrofit Program to support rental, strata and equity co-op buildings to make the switch to more energy-efficient and cleaner technologies. A key feature of the new actions being announced by the Province is the expansion of heat pump rebates into individual suites, rather than the entire building.

    This action supports the 2024 Cooperation and Responsible Government Accord with the BC Green caucus, which commits the government to contribute $50 million annually toward electric heat pumps for the next two fiscal years, ensuring they are accessible to low- and moderate-income households.

    Quotes:

    Roger Dall’Antonia, president and CEO, FortisBC –

    “The Energy Conservation Assistance Program, a long-standing collaboration with BC Hydro, is one of the ways we are supporting our customers across the province. We’re proud to work together to deliver conservation and energy-efficiency programs to income-qualified customers to help them lower their energy use and associated costs.”

    Jeremy Valeriote, interim leader, BC Greens and MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky –

    “Climate action should be seen as an affordable solution. And through our agreement with the government, we’ve ensured that clean-energy solutions like heat pumps are more accessible to everyone in this province, regardless of their living situation. Addressing climate change must also be affordable, and we’re pleased to see government initiatives moving in that direction.”

    Mike Nowotniak, principal, Method Air –

    “With equipment and labour costs rising, government rebates have become essential in helping families afford the comfort, energy savings and climate resilience of heat pumps. These programs empower us to deliver cleaner technology to more homes, especially those who need it most.”

    Quick Facts:

    • Since Better Homes and Better Buildings launched in 2018, the program has delivered 26,700 rebates for B.C. households, including 12,900 incentives to income-qualified households.
    • From 2019 to 2023, average heat pump sales were nearly double the average of the previous five years, and in 2022 began to exceed furnace sales.
    • Today, 13% of all B.C. households use heat pumps for heating, up from 5% in 2008.
    • Government programs have supported the establishment of strong supply chains and industry capacity, establishing a network of more than 700 heating, ventilation and air-conditioning companies throughout B.C.

    Learn More:

    To learn about programs to help with costs, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/home/benefits

    For help claiming cash benefits when filing taxes, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/filing-your-taxes-has-its-benefits

    More information about rebates and how to apply will be posted when available here: https://www.betterhomesbc.ca

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom honors survivors and victims of crime statewide

    Source: US State of California 2

    Apr 9, 2025

    What you need to know: Governor Gavin Newsom recognizes California’s resources and support for victims of crime during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

    Sacramento, California – Showing support for survivors and victims of crime and highlighting the resources the state has provided for impacted families, Governor Gavin Newsom today recognized National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. Read the letter here.

    Unfortunately, too many victims walk away from the legal system feeling unheard and unsupported. California is working to change that, by listening to and working with victims and survivors to find healing by helping them take back control of their lives and their recovery.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Since 2019, California has invested more than $1 billion to fund public safety efforts, including over $300 million for victim services. California has dedicated programs and initiatives to support crime victims, including ensuring they have access to rape crisis centers, domestic violence resources, trained victim advocacy professionals, safe housing, crime witnesses assistance, increased forensic science services, family legal services, among other resources.   

    Last week, the Governor’s Office honored the staff of the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services for their work at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to support crime victims through compassionate, trauma-informed practices. From collecting restitution to providing direct support during parole proceedings to restorative justice initiatives to community outreach, the department plays a key role in promoting accountability and honoring survivors.

    Signing our values into law

    Governor Newsom recently signed into law a number of bills that help build on California’s protections for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, creating additional resources and access to safeguard victims from abusers. These laws strengthen California’s restraining orders by removing barriers that could prevent someone from accessing these life-saving tools and by extending the length of time that abusers must stay away from their victims. They also help survivors rebuild their lives — by providing financial help through a victims’ restitution fund that would be funded by the penalties recovered from white-collar criminals. In addition, the 2024-25 budget included $103 million in one-time funding for victims’ services programs, helping make up a substantial gap in federal funding.

    Supporting victim services

    California has been a national leader in victim services since 1965, when the state established the first victim compensation program in the nation. Now known as the California Victims Compensation Board, victims who suffer physical injury or the threat of physical injury as a result of a violent crime can solicit reimbursement for crime-related expenses. Since its inception, the victim compensation program has provided more than $2.8 billion to assist victims of violent crime. In addition, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers about $310 million in federal and state funds for 70 victims services programs this current fiscal year.

    Recent news

    Apr 9, 2025

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement responding to President Trump’s executive order targeting state-level climate and clean energy efforts. This is the world the Trump Administration wants your kids to live in. California’s…

    Apr 8, 2025

    News What you need to know: A state grant of $14 million has secured safe drinking water for the severely disadvantaged community of Needles. NEEDLES – After years of struggling with poor water quality and aging facilities, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the…

    Apr 7, 2025

    News Sacramento, California – Acting Governor Eleni Kounalakis today issued a proclamation declaring April 6 to April 12, 2025 as California Library Week. The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATION During National Library Week, we…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ‘Glorified press release:’ Governor Newsom responds to latest Trump order turning back the clock on climate

    Source: US State of California 2

    Apr 9, 2025

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement responding to President Trump’s executive order targeting state-level climate and clean energy efforts.

    This is the world the Trump Administration wants your kids to live in. California’s efforts to cut harmful pollution won’t be derailed by a glorified press release masquerading as an executive order. 

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    California’s climate leadership

    The state continues to set clean energy records. Last year, California ran on 100% clean electricity for the equivalent of 45 days. Since the beginning of the Newsom Administration, battery storage is up to over 13,000 megawatts – a 1,600%+ increase.

    Pollution is down and the economy is up. Greenhouse gas emissions in California are down 20% since 2000 – even as the state’s GDP increased 78% in that same time period.

    Press Releases, Recent News

    Recent news

    Apr 8, 2025

    News What you need to know: A state grant of $14 million has secured safe drinking water for the severely disadvantaged community of Needles. NEEDLES – After years of struggling with poor water quality and aging facilities, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the…

    Apr 7, 2025

    News Sacramento, California – Acting Governor Eleni Kounalakis today issued a proclamation declaring April 6 to April 12, 2025 as California Library Week. The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATION During National Library Week, we…

    Apr 7, 2025

    News What you need to know: CAL FIRE is launching a new campaign supporting Californians to take steps now – including home hardening and defensible space – to prepare for peak fire season. SACRAMENTO – “Prepare your home and property! Start at the house and work your…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Score the new Pixel 9a and Google One AI Premium perk at Verizon and save big!

    Source: Verizon

    Headline: Score the new Pixel 9a and Google One AI Premium perk at Verizon and save big!

    [TL;DR]

    • Pixel 9a now at Verizon: Available in Obsidian and Iris for $13.88/month or “on us” with any myPlan for new lines.
    • Google AI Premium Perk: Verizon customers can get Google One AI Premium for $10 a month ($9.99 a month in savings), unlocking Gemini Advanced and 2TB of storage.
    • Price lock guarantee: Verizon is the first and only carrier in the industry offering new and existing customers a three-year price lock guarantee on all myPlan and myHome network plans. Price guarantee excludes taxes and fees.

    [The big news]

    The Google Pixel 9a is coming to Verizon, featuring everything you love about Pixel, including AI-power with Gemini, an amazing camera, a durable design, robust security features, Pixel Drops and seven years of Pixel updates from Google.

    Pixel 9a will be available on April 10 in Obsidian and Iris colors for $13.88 a month for 36 months (0% APR, $499.99 retail). Verizon mobile and home subscribers can also take full advantage of the Pixel 9a when they add the Google One AI Premium perk to their account. This complements the various savings Verizon offers on entertainment and productivity services. Whether it’s YouTube Premium, Travelpass or many more, you know we are giving you the best value.

    [Why Verizon is the best place to get your Google Pixel 9a]

    Three years. Free phone. Zero price hikes on network plans. It’s control, value and simplicity for all. Get the new Google Pixel 9a, on us, with a new line on any myPlan plan — no trade-in required. Also, switch to Verizon and get plans as low as $30 a line per month with four lines on Unlimited Welcome and Auto Pay (plus taxes and fees). Verizon continues to provide value for its customers with an industry-leading guarantee — a 3-year price lock on all myPlan and myHome network plans and free satellite texting. Price guarantee applies to base monthly rate only.

    Business offers. Now every business can get the new Google Pixel 9a on us, with select data plan and device payment purchase agreement..

    Epic Gemini AI perk. Verizon customers can choose Google One AI Premium as a perk on their myPlan (mobile) or myHome (internet) plan for just $10 a month — that’s half the price of the usual $19.99. This new perk unlocks access to Gemini Advanced, 2 TB of storage, and more benefits across Google — all in one incredible package, making everyday tasks easier.

    Try Verizon for free. Want a new Pixel 9a, but not yet a Verizon customer? Sign up for the Verizon Free Trial and enjoy unlimited premium data on 5G Ultra Wideband, our fastest 5G network, free for 30 days without disrupting your current service. Download the My Verizon app on your unlocked iOS or Android phone and start your free trial today.

    [How to get your Google Pixel 9a]

    The Google Pixel 9a will be available on April 10 at Verizon stores and at Verizon.com. Verizon Business customers can visit Verizon Business online for business-specific pricing and promos. Upgrade to the new Google Pixel 9a, Google’s affordable AI-powered smartphone, and take advantage of the special deals and offers from Verizon.

    Pixel 9a on us offer: $499.99 (128 GB only) purchase w/new smartphone line on Unlimited Ultimate, postpaid Unlimited Plus, or Unlimited Welcome plan for 36 mos. req’d. Less $499.99 promo credit applied over 36 mos.; promo credit ends if eligibility req’s are no longer met; 0% APR. Offer may not be combined with other offers.

    Business offer: (New / Upgrades): Taxes & fees apply. New line or device upgrade w/device payment purchase agmt, Business Unlimited Plus or Unlimited Pro plan req’d. New line offer is also available with Business Unlimited Start plan. $499.99 credit applied to acct. over the term of your agmt (up to 36 mos, 0% APR); promo credit ends when eligibility requirements are no longer met. Credits begin in 2-3 bills & will include appropriate credit amounts from order date. Cannot be combined with other device offers. Pixel 9a monthly fee after credit: $0. Offer available 4.10 through 6.30.2025.

    3-yr price guarantee: myPlan: Applies to the then-current base monthly rate for your talk, text, and data. Excludes taxes, fees, surcharges, additional plan discounts or promotions, and third-party services. Void if any of the lines are canceled or moved to an ineligible plan. Plan perks, taxes, fees, and surcharges are subject to change. myHome: Price guarantee for 3-5 years, depending on internet plan, for new and existing myHome customers. Applies only to the then-current base monthly rate exclusive of any other setup and additional equipment charges, discounts or promotions, plan perk and any other third-party services.

    Google One AI Premium perk requires line subscribed to myPlan. Must be 18 yrs or older. Cancel anytime. One offer per eligible Verizon line; add’l terms apply.

    Pixel updates for 7 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US. See g.co/pixel/updates for details.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Honduras: The presidential candidates have a unique opportunity to commit to human rights

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Amnesty International encourages the presidential candidates to ensure that their political agendas in the lead-up to the general election on 30 November include a focus on human rights.

    This year, the electoral process in Honduras coincides with the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Honduras, in which UN member states will analyse, in November, Honduras’ performance in the field of human rights.

    The election campaign is, therefore, a unique opportunity for the candidates, recently confirmed by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal on April 8th, to take a stance on the country’s main and historic human rights shortcomings, and incorporate them into their respective agendas.

    “Progress on human rights in Honduras over the past four years has been very timid. In fact, the Honduran Government has broken many of its commitments to the country’s population in terms of human rights. Examples include failings in the fight against impunity, guaranteeing security, protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and sexual and reproductive rights. Honduras’ fourth UPR cycle can be a crucial moment to initiate a change in the direction of the country, if the presidential candidates take advantage of it as an opportunity”, said Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International.

    Progress on human rights in Honduras over the past four years has been very timid. In fact, the Honduran Government has broken many of its commitments to the country’s population in terms of human rights. Examples include failings in the fight against impunity, guaranteeing security, protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and sexual and reproductive rights. Honduras’ fourth UPR cycle can be a crucial moment to initiate a change in the direction of the country, if the presidential candidates take advantage of it as an opportunity”

    Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International

    Amnesty International has submitted a report to the UN ahead of the UPR. The document evaluates the implementation to date of the recommendations made by other States to Honduras in its previous UPR, in 2021, and raises concerns about the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and other human rights issues related to the environment, women’s rights, discrimination and health. It also sets out proposals for recommendations. Below, we highlight some of them.

    Use of force

    In 2022, the Honduran Government declared a state of emergency, which has remained in force ever since, justifying it as necessary to combat insecurity and organized crime. This measure has, for example, enabled the National Police and the Military Police to carry out searches and detentions without judicial authorizations in 226 of the country’s 298 municipalities.

    Amnesty International shares the concern of local organizations and the media that have documented multiple human rights violations in the context of implementation of the state of emergency, allegedly perpetrated by the National Police, the Anti-Gang Police (DIPAMPCO) and the Military Police, such as arbitrary detentions, excessive use of force, torture, enforced disappearances and violations of the right to a fair trial. By October 2024, the National Human Rights Commissioner had received more than 700 complaints against the police and security forces since the beginning of the state of emergency and has since called for an end to that measure.

    We urge the presidential candidates to commit to ending the prolonged state of emergency, devising a comprehensive and sustainable security policy, and ensuring prompt, impartial, independent and effective investigations into all cases of unnecessary and excessive use of force, to be conducted by independent bodies different from those of the alleged perpetrators.

    Human rights defenders and journalists

    Honduras is the country with the highest number of land and environmental defenders killed per capita in the world, according to the latest Global Witness report. The vast majority of attacks, which mainly occur in the context of legal disputes related to mining projects, insecurity of land tenure and violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, go unpunished. There are also concerns about the high level of criminalization of human rights defenders, for example, based on the crime of usurpation, as a result of Decree 93-2021, which amended the criminal code.

    This situation is exacerbated by the weakness and ineffectiveness of the national mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders and journalists, which international and national organizations have repeatedly warned about.

    Therefore, we ask the candidates to make a serious commitment to effectively protect human rights defenders and journalists, who play an essential role in defending the rule of law. To that end, we urge them to ensure that sufficient resources are assigned to the effective protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and to guarantee thorough, prompt, impartial and independent investigations into all attacks against them. We also call on them to refrain from misusing the justice system to intimidate, harass and discredit human rights defenders, and to promote Honduras’ accession to the Escazú Regional Agreement, the first Latin American and Caribbean treaty to include provisions on the protection of environmental defenders.

    Sexual and reproductive rights

    Abortion is still prohibited in Honduras under all circumstances. In 2023, the government legalized the use and sale of the emergency contraceptive pill. However, access to the pill is hampered due to limited availability at public health facilities. Moreover, despite high levels of childhood and adolescent pregnancies, in 2023 the president vetoed the Pregnancy Prevention Act, aimed at providing comprehensive sex education.

    We urge the candidates to commit to decriminalizing abortion in all circumstances and ensuring access to abortion in law and in practice for women, girls and all persons who can become pregnant.

    “Amnesty International calls on the presidential candidates in Honduras’ upcoming general elections to demonstrate their express, clear and firm commitment to defending human rights. We also ask them to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights violations are not committed during the electoral process”, added Ana Piquer.

    Amnesty International calls on the presidential candidates in Honduras’ upcoming general elections to demonstrate their express, clear and firm commitment to defending human rights. We also ask them to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights violations are not committed during the electoral process”

    Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Secretary Rubio meets with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud

    Source: United States of America – Department of State (video statements)

    Secretary of State Marco A. Rubio meets with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud at the Department of State, on April 9, 2025.

    ———-
    Under the leadership of the President and Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity. On behalf of the American people we promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.

    The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.

    Get updates from the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov and on social media!
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/statedept
    X: https://x.com/StateDept
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/statedept
    Flickr: https://flickr.com/photos/statephotos/

    Subscribe to the State Department Blog: https://www.state.gov/blogs
    Watch on-demand State Department videos: https://video.state.gov/
    Subscribe to The Week at State e-newsletter: http://ow.ly/diiN30ro7Cw

    State Department website: https://www.state.gov/
    Careers website: https://careers.state.gov/
    White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    Terms of Use: https://state.gov/tou

    #StateDepartment #DepartmentofState #Diplomacy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2L0sQfAwUo

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Reverend Warnock Demands Answers from Admin Trade Official on Reckless Tariffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia

    Senator Reverend Warnock Demands Answers from Admin Trade Official on Reckless Tariffs

    During a Tuesday Senate Finance hearing, Senator Reverend Warnock grilled United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the economic fallout less than a week after President Trump issued sweeping tariffs

    The Senator specifically spotlighted how small businesses and families will be backed into a corner and forced to pay an increased price for goods

    Senator Reverend Warnock uplifted the story of a Georgia small business that may have to close as a result of the tariffs

    Senators Reverend Warnock during the hearing: “This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families”

    Watch video of Senator Reverend Warnock’s questioning HERE

    Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, grilled United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the fallout following President Trump’s announcement of a sweeping array of tariffs last week.

    “This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families,” said Senator Warnock.

    During the hearing, Senator Warnock specifically highlighted how the broad and indiscriminate tariffs provide no avenue for relief for ordinary American families and small business owners, backing them into a corner and forcing them to accept higher prices. Senator Warnock uplifted the story of Georgia constituent Angela Hawkins, who is the founder of Bamblu, a small business in Atlanta that sells bamboo-based sleepwear and sheets for people with severe and sensitive skin allergies. Hawkins, who imports many of her products from overseas, is now at risk of going out of business due to the price hikes caused by the tariffs.

    “Angela’s products are made overseas because you can’t find bamboo fabric made in the United States. What should Angela do? Pay the new tax? Raise her prices and risk losing customers? Or is there a process for her to apply for an exclusion from the Trump White House?” asked Senator Warnock.

    “The President has said that in connection with this action, he is not going to have exclusions or exemptions beyond what is in the program already for certain products,” responded Jamieson Greer.

    “She might even go out of business,” said Senator Warnock.

    Last week, Senator Warnock issued a statement following President Trump’s rollout of a sweeping new set of tariffs that raise the prices of everyday goods, everything from groceries to cars. In the statement opposing the tariff announcement, Senator Warnock highlighted the potential of the cost of living to go up as a result.

    Watch the Senator’s full remarks and line of questioning HERE.

    See below a transcript of Senator Warnock’s remarks:

    Senator Reverend Warnock (SRW): “Since President Trump announced his tariffs last week, the stock market has dropped more than 10%, we’ve talked about that. I’m more concerned about the impact on ordinary people. This is a regressive tax. It’s a tax on families, who are already dealing with increasing costs and trying to figure out how to make their lives work. I heard you say that you don’t think we’re in a trade war. I respect your expertise on trade. But tomorrow, the Trump Administration will implement its reciprocal tariffs, which means businesses and families have had less than one week to plan for the largest tax increase in more than 50 years.”

    “We are escalating. We can go back and forth about whether we think it is a trade war. I’m focused on how this is impacting families. Normally, when tariffs are being discussed, businesses and industries have time to plan. The government often provides an orderly and clear process for American companies to apply for exclusions from tariffs when it is not possible for them to sell a product without importing parts or all of it because no one manufactures it here. We all know uncertainty is the worst thing for business. I’m hearing this from farmers, from folks in the manufacturing sector. I hope we can provide some certainty.”

    “What should a multinational retailer do about their products made only overseas, or that contain parts only made overseas? We are seeing this in our automotive sector in Georgia. Should they just raise their prices on families to account for the new tax, or is there a process for that company to reach out to the White House for an exclusion?” 

    United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer (JG): “Senator Warnock, the section 232 on autos is a Commerce Department action. One thing they have done is they have said that they would be willing to give some kind of credit for U.S. Content in parts and components and they can approach the Commerce Department about this. It’s not a decision I’m making, but I know this is one alternative.”

    “I am mindful, when I hear this, obviously, we are sensitive to these dynamics. It reminds me that we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs over the last 20 years. That’s part of the reason why we are in the situation now. We just have to bring those back. It’s important to bring those back now before the situation gets worse.”

    SRW: “The question is: what do they do? Do they pass that price onto consumers?” 

    JG: “What we’ve seen Ford and GM, for example, have announced that they are giving discounts. That was the big news last week, last Thursday. They would be giving discounts going forward. These companies often are going figure out how they locate costs among themselves and it rarely gets down to consumers.” 

    SRW: “The company might figure it out.” 

    JG: “They can approach the Commerce Department.” 

    SRW: “Let me go smaller, last week, my office met with Angela Hawkins, she’s the founder of Bamblu, a small business in Atlanta that sells bamboo-based sleepwear and sheets particularly for people with severe and sensitive skin allergies like her husband. Angela’s products are made overseas because you can’t find bamboo fabric made in the United States. What should Angela do? Pay the new tax? Raise her prices and risk losing customers? Or is there a process for her to apply for an exclusion from the Trump White House?” 

    JG: “The President has said that in connection with this action, he is not going to have exclusions or exemptions beyond what is in the program already for certain products.”

    SRW: “So she will just have to figure it out.” 

    JG: “She will have to work with her business partners and figure out outsourcing…”

    SRW: “She’ll have to either raise prices and risk customers [is] basically the answer, right? Because she can’t get bamboo here.”

    JG: “It will depend on the tariff rate. Every country has a different rate. Some are lower than others.”

    SRW: “So she might even go out of business.”

    “Let’s go even smaller. Early estimates show that President Trump’s tariffs will increase the costs of goods by $3,800 for the average American household. Many critical baby [gates] are produced abroad or have foreign-made components. I went through this not long ago as a parent of young children. For an expecting family in Augusta, Georgia, who may see a 50% price increase for that stroller or car seat, what is the process for that family to apply for a White House exclusion? I guess if the business owner can’t get one, they can’t get one either, correct?”

    JG: “There’s not an exclusion process, that’s right.” 

    SRW: “So they would just bear the cost?” 

    JG: “I think the studies you’re talking about, the economists got it wrong in Trump one [first Trump Administration], they said that there would be inflation because of tariffs, and it when down.  When I hear them saying the same thing, I don’t trust what they are saying. The fact of history shows that it’s not a one-to-one.” 

    “The highest inflation we ever saw was under [President] Biden for housing and education and health care, and all of these things. I don’t know where everybody was then, when that was skyrocketing.” 

    SRW: “What if their child is potassium deficient? And now bananas are more expensive. Last I checked, we don’t have the climate to grow bananas in the United States. Who should that family reach out to the White House for an exclusion for that price hike on those bananas?”

    JG: “There’s not an exclusion process. I think we have waited too long with the status quo. I know people want the status quo…” 

    SRW: “Here, you and I agree. Nobody wants the status quo. This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Monaco’s Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, Ask about Efforts to Revise Torture Laws and the Transfer of Prisoners to France

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Monaco under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with Committee Experts praising Monaco’s ratification of United Nations and European human rights treaties, while raising questions about efforts to bring legislation on torture in line with the Convention and the transfer of prisoners to France.

    Abderrazak Rouwane, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of United Nations and Council of Europe human rights instruments. Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture?

    Mr. Rouwane asked about measures the State party had taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention.  The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.

    Erdogan Iscan, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said some inmates in Monaco continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State 

    party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France.  Would a formal legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent to transfers be created?  Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners?

    Introducing the report, Samuel Vuelta Simon, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, said Monaco ensured that its legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment.

    Mr. Vuelta Simon said the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment.  Also, a legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible and would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it.

    The delegation said the Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance.  It took precedence over domestic legislation. The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.

    The delegation said an impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention had been carried out, and the State party was not closing the door on ratification.  However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments.  There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms.

    The delegation also said that Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres.  Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance in managing prisoners.  Transfer requests to French prisons were made by detainees who were French citizens. The State party would consider formalising this procedure.  French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights. There was no transfer of citizens of Monaco to foreign prisons.

    In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank.  The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention.

    In his concluding remarks, Mr. Vuelta Simon said that Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries.  Some issues had been raised in the dialogue that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees.  Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.

    The delegation of Monaco consisted of representatives from the Directorate of Public Safety; Department of External Relations and Cooperation; Directorate of Legal Affairs; Directorate of Judicial Services; and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Monaco at the end of its eighty-second session on 2 May.  Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 10 April at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of the fifth periodic report of Mauritius (CAT/C/MUS/5).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/MCO/7).

    Presentation of Report

    SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice, Director of Judicial Services of Mexico and head of the delegation, said human dignity was an absolute value that the Principality of Monaco was committed to protecting with determination. Monaco was committed to constantly improving its mechanisms for preventing and protecting against torture and inhuman treatment.  Since the submission of its first report in 1994, Monaco had continued its efforts to strengthen its legal and institutional framework, which had led to significant progress, both in terms of legislation and the implementation of concrete measures to guarantee ever more effective protection against all forms of violence.

    Monaco ensured that the legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment.  The Constitution explicitly guaranteed respect for human dignity and prohibited any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  This absolute prohibition was reinforced by several provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment. 

    The Principality had begun an in-depth study to incorporate into its domestic law a definition of torture that was fully in line with article one of the Convention. A legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible.  It would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it, and the absolute inadmissibility of evidence obtained under duress.  These measures would complement an already strict legal arsenal which severely punished acts of violence, especially when committed by a public official.

    Monaco also attached particular importance to supporting and providing reparation to victims. In 2023, it adopted an unprecedented compensation scheme for victims of serious crimes, including domestic violence and misdemeanours and crimes against minors, guaranteeing rapid and effective compensation to victims when the perpetrators were insolvent.  Courts had an obligation to inform victims of this possibility.

    In recent years, significant improvements had been made to Monaco’s prison to provide a more suitable living environment for inmates.  The renovation of the cells had made it possible to bring in more natural light, while a new exercise yard and an activity room had been set up.  A body scanner had recently been introduced to limit the use of body searches.  The visiting regime had been significantly improved, allowing inmates to benefit from three 90-minute visits per week, in addition to two daily 45-minute visits.

    The incarceration of minors remained an exceptional measure in Monaco.  Recent reforms had strengthened the juvenile justice system to promote the reintegration and well-being of young people in conflict with the law.  Anyone in police custody had the immediate right to information and the assistance of a lawyer, permanent judicial supervision, and audio-visual recording of interrogations, thus ensuring the transparency of proceedings.  Since 2022, the right to the assistance of a lawyer had been strengthened in the event of an extension of police custody. 

    The Monegasque Institute for the Training of the Judicial Professions, in collaboration with other specialised institutions, provided regular training to public security forces on international standards for the respect of fundamental rights. The public security forces were thus regularly made aware of good practices, particularly regarding the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

    Monaco ensured that respect for fundamental rights within its prison system was monitored. The Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation played a key role in this system by providing detainees with direct access to report any allegations of ill-treatment.  Since the last review, a new right had been introduced allowing detainees to call the Office of the High Commissioner directly once a day, including when they were in a disciplinary cell.

    Monaco reaffirmed its total commitment to the fight against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.  While there was still room for improvement, the legislative, judicial and institutional advances put in place in recent years had made it possible to considerably strengthen the prevention, control and punishment of abuses.  Monaco would continue its efforts with determination to ensure that respect for human dignity was never compromised.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, expressed regret regarding the absence of civil society participants in the dialogue.  Why were they absent?  What measures had the State party taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention?  The Committee had called on the State party to do so in each of its last six reviews. Could the delegation give some examples of court cases that had referenced the Convention or other United Nations human rights treaties?  The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.

    What measures had been taken to ensure that detainees enjoyed all basic legal rights from the outset of deprivation of liberty?  The Committee had called on the State party to amend legislation that allowed police officers to prevent detainees from contacting a family member if such communication was considered detrimental to investigations.  Had this been done?  Did victims benefit from legal aid in cases involving allegations of torture or ill-treatment?

    What steps had been taken to promote the accreditation of the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation under the Paris Principles?  The Office did not have a specific mandate to protect against human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, and it did not have the competence to conduct investigations, publish studies or formulate opinions on draft legislation on its own initiative.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol and set up a national preventive mechanism against torture?

    The Committee congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of human rights instruments within the framework of the United Nations system and the Council of Europe.  Would it ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Convention for the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families?

    The Committee noted positive amendments to the law on the status of the judiciary to strengthen the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which had enabled the Council to take up disciplinary matters on its own.  However, the Council’s role in appointing judges had not been increased and its activity report was not made public.  The Director of Judicial Services, part of the executive, chaired the High Council and could appoint and suspend judges and magistrates directly.  The Prosecutor General and the magistrates of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were also under the direct authority of the Director. Was this not interference by the executive in the affairs of justice?  How would the State party ensure the full independence of the judiciary, including in matters related to appointment and disciplinary measures?

    Could the State party provide updated data on extraditions, asylum applications, and the number of appeals against asylum decisions?  The Committee noted that refugees enjoyed the rights provided for in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.  However, there was a lack of clarity regarding the asylum process and safeguards offered, and uncertainty surrounding the procedure for cooperation between the State party and the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons.  Would the State party implement a mechanism to follow up on asylum seekers’ cases with the Office?  What measures were in place to domesticate an asylum assessment procedure?  Could the State party provide information on extradition cases and requests made for mutual legal assistance related to international cases involving torture?

    A large number of foreigners living in neighbouring countries were working informally in Monaco and were at risk of trafficking.  How was the State party combatting trafficking in persons, raising awareness of the issue, and training the judiciary on it?  What measures were in place to strengthen the identification of trafficking victims?  What tools were available to public officials to guide the identification of child victims of trafficking?

    The Committee had previously called for the strengthening of training for the judiciary and prison officials on the Convention and the revised Istanbul Protocol of 2022.  What measures would the State party take to train officials who were in contact with persons deprived of liberty on the absolute prohibition of torture?  Were there any monitoring mechanisms in places of deprivation of liberty?

    ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended the recent progress by the State presented in the opening statement.  The Committee noted that the remand prison of Monaco had recently been extended, its facilities upgraded, and the visit regime improved.  However, there were limits to the extent to which the prison could be expanded due to its location, and the prison reportedly remained unsuitable for prolonged detention due to its limited natural light and lack of space for activities.  What further steps would be taken to improve prison conditions?

    Some inmates continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France.  There was no formalised legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent and requests regarding transfers.  Would one be created?  How many Monegasque prisoners were currently serving sentences in French prisons? Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners?  Did they have access to lawyers and could they maintain social connections in Monaco?  How would the State party ensure this right?  Which State conducted investigations in cases of complaints by these prisoners?  Had the State party considered expanding the capacity of its prison system to allow inmates to remain in Monaco?

    Did current legislation prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including homes and educational institutions? Were awareness raising campaigns or training programmes on corporal punishment for parents and childcare professionals planned?  Minors under age 13 could not be detained but could be held in police custody for up to 24 hours in criminal cases.  Could the delegation provide data on minors in police custody?  Would the State party consider revising legislation to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years of age?

    Had the State party made progress in adopting legislation that provided full redress to victims of torture? Would it consider scaling up its support to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and had it updated legislation to ensure that statements obtained through torture were made null and void?

    The Committee noted with satisfaction measures taken by the State party to prevent and combat violence against women, including revision of the Criminal Code and awareness raising campaigns. What protection measures were in place for foreign women who were victims of violence, and what resources were devoted to programmes and measures to combat violence against women?

    Reportedly, conditions in closed psychiatric units in the Princess Grace Hospital were good, but improvements were needed regarding prolonged hospitalisation and treatment of minors and detainees requiring psychiatric care.  Was the State party addressing this?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether the Convention was directly applicable in Monaco.  How were potential conflicts between the Convention and domestic legislation resolved?

    One Committee Expert asked how many prisoners were serving in Monaco.  What happened to prisoners who did not consent to being transferred to French prisons?  Could the delegation clarify whether consent was needed to conduct transfers?

    A Committee Expert said domestic law on trafficking was sound, but the State party needed to strengthen the training of law enforcement officials, social workers, medical staff and the public on identifying victims of trafficking.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the Director of Judicial Services was also the Secretary of State for Justice, which, as a member of the judiciary, was not part of the executive branch of Government but fell under the authority of the Prince.  The judiciary was guaranteed security of tenure and independence.  The Secretary of State for Justice gave generalised guidance to the judiciary that was consistent with State policies, but prosecutors were free to speak independently in carrying out their work.

    Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres.  Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance for managing prisoners. There were only six prosecutors and 22 jurists who worked with legislators to develop legal texts.  Some 39,000 people lived in Monaco but only 9,000 had citizenship.

    The Supreme Council of the Judiciary was made up of two elected judges and five judges appointed by the Council itself.  Both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Supreme Council could take up cases of discipline of judges.  The Supreme Council selected candidates for judicial posts and had a special budget guaranteeing its independence.  Training was provided to newly appointed judges and prosecutors through French institutions; approximately two-thirds of judges had been seconded from France.  A draft law had been developed that would create a reserve pool of judges to strengthen the domestic availability of judges.

    Monaco had a dualist system.  The Prince signed and ratified international treaties, with authorisation by the National Council.  Sovereign ordinances were used to allow for international treaties to be directly invoked before national courts.  There were cases in which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights had been invoked. The Constitution had the highest status in the domestic legal order, followed by international treaties, which took precedence over domestic legislation.

    The Constitution expressly prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  Acts of torture committed in offences of sexual aggression, terrorism and abduction were considered to be aggravated crimes. Monaco’s judicial services had limited capacity, but aimed to establish a stand-alone offence of torture in line with article one of the Convention through a draft law that was currently before the legislature.  Serious crimes committed against minors had a statute of limitations of 30 years, which started when the victim reached the age of majority.  Monaco’s law imposed an absolute prohibition of torture; it was impossible to justify acts of torture in any circumstances.  Hierarchical superiors were held accountable for illegal orders to carry out acts of torture, as were agents who carried out such orders.  Subordinates who refused to obey illegal orders were not disciplined or considered to have committed a crime.

    There was one case of trafficking against a minor in which the court had referenced the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in its ruling.  The scope of the criminalisation of trafficking had been broadened to address domestic trafficking cases that did not involve organised crime.  Trafficking that endangered victims’ lives, trafficking of minors, and trafficking by public officials or members of organised criminal groups were considered aggravating circumstances.

    Police custody was always recorded and was subject to court oversight; examining magistrates could end police custody at any point.  All persons in police custody were informed of the reasons of their detention and their rights, including the right to access a lawyer from the beginning of custody. All persons who earned less than 20,000 euros per year were entitled to free legal aid.  Detainees could request a medical examination at any point.  The State party intended to regulate the grounds under which the Prosecutor General could restrict detainees’ right to contact a relative.  Hearings were filmed and could be conducted in the presence of a legal counsel. Criminal investigative officers needed to record the time of detention and other details relating to the detention, including reasons for refusals of detainees’ rights.

    Minors under 13 could not be placed in police custody unless they committed an offence that carried a five-year prison sentence.  Hearings of minors needed to be conducted with a lawyer present.  Police custody of minors was typically 12 hours but could be extended to 24 hours in criminal cases with the permission of a judge.

    Legislation on the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights and Mediation had been revised to bring the institution in line with the Paris Principles.  The law allowed the High Commissioner to carry out surveys and provide recommendations related to combatting discrimination, protecting human rights, and implementing international conventions.  It also strengthened the High Commissioner’s investigative powers and gave the body powers to defend the rights of the child. Steps had been taken to promote registration of the institution by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.  Since 2022, detainees were able to contact the High Commissioner directly by telephone, in addition to through written communications.  Monaco had installed a body scanning machine in its prison after detainees’ complaints to the High Commissioner regarding body searches.

    Civil society in Monaco was very active. As there had been no demonstrated cases of torture in the State for almost a century, there were no non-governmental organizations working on the issue.  The High Commissioner’s mandate had recently been expanded and it was now recruiting staff to address its new functions.  In future, the High Commissioner could be able to participate in reviews by the Committee.

    Ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was not a priority for the State.  The State party tried to align its legislation with international instruments before ratifying them, which caused delays in ratification.  There were no cases of enforced disappearance in Monaco. 

    An impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had been carried out.  There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms. There had been no complaints regarding ill-treatment or poor conditions.  Ratifying the Optional Protocol was not a top priority for the Government but could be done in future.  Monaco made voluntary contributions to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, but did not envisage providing contributions to the Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

    Refugees fell under ordinary law for entry and stay in Monaco.  They received 10-year residence permits.  The State currently hosted 23 refugees.  Monaco respected the principle of non-refoulement.  Asylum seekers whose claims were rejected were not immediately removed, unless they posed a threat to public safety.  The Government called on the relevant French authority to assess asylum claims.  Refusals of asylum claims were always explained and could be appealed before the relevant court.  The overseas diplomatic presence of Monaco in countries of origin for asylum seekers was limited.

    When the Ukraine conflict began in 2022, Monaco established a system providing temporary protection for Ukrainian citizens who had lived in Monaco prior to the establishment of the system. Currently, around 50 Ukrainians held the temporary protection permit, which allowed them to access health, education and other social services.  Many holders of this permit had since gained residency permits.

    The State party had not received any requests for mutual legal assistance or handled any international cases involving torture.  It had received one extradition request, which Monaco’s court of appeal rejected due to concerns about human rights protections.

    In 2020, two people were transferred to French prisons, while one person was transferred in 2023 and another in 2024; there were two requests in 2025 that were being assessed.  Transfer requests to France were typically made by French citizens.  All requests for prison transfers were made in writing by the detainees themselves. The State party would consider formalising this procedure.  There were no difficulties in transfers to France; French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights.  Requests for transfers to other countries were considered based on respect for detainees’ rights.

    The national human rights institution received and investigated written complaints from detainees.  There was also an internal oversight body within the police force that could be called on by the judiciary to investigate police officers accused of human rights violations.  Complaints made to the Prosecutor-General triggered judicial proceedings.  Legal assistance was available for persons who filed for civil damages.  A compensation mechanism had been set up for victims of serious offences who could not be compensated by the perpetrator. Compensation covered damages and court costs.  State compensation could also be provided to persons who were placed in pre-trial detention before being released or acquitted.

    The State party had adopted a law on school bullying and harassment, and the Criminal Code prohibited and punished corporal punishment, including in school and family settings.  Teaching staff and other school staff underwent annual training on identifying and addressing harassment of children. Schools needed to implement awareness raising initiatives to combat harassment and bullying.

    Incarceration and pre-trial detention of children were last resort measures.  Judges could determine alternatives to prosecution of minor offenders, including provisional releases, reparation for victims, community service, and training within social health institutions.  Judges could also order minors to be placed in the Foyer d’Enfance, from which they were free to come and go.  In 2020, five minors were charged, of whom none were detained; in 2021, seven minors were charged and only one was placed in pre-trial detention for one month and 20 days; and in 2022, out of the 15 minors who were charged, only two were placed in pre-trial detention.

    The age of criminal responsibility in Monaco was 13 years.  None of the 15 minor offenders in 2022 were aged 13.  The State party would consider raising the age threshold and revising the legal status of minors in the country.

    Considerable progress had been made since 2020 in improving the detention facility.  The State had installed cells with better access to natural light, a games room, a new exercise yard, and air conditioning and heating facilities within cells.  Exercise and folding laundry were no longer mandatory, televisions did not need to be switched off at certain times, and the State no longer imposed solitary confinement on detainees.

    Women and child victims of violence were supported by the Directorate for Social Assistance.  A protocol for care of victims of domestic violence had been established.  Health care professionals were trained in caring for victims and managing perpetrators when they accompanied them.  Victims were provided with shelter in emergencies when they could not stay with friends or family.  They were entitled to medical care, psychological assistance, and legal advice.

    The employment service verified working conditions for migrant workers and the labour inspectorate carried out numerous checks to ensure that workers’ rights were being respected.  Officials held interviews with applicants for residence and work permits to detect risks of trafficking.  To date, 96 public officials had received training on identifying and treating victims of trafficking.

    Members of the judiciary were obliged to attend at least five days of training per year either locally or in France, which addressed human rights and international and European norms.  The State sought to ensure that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were incorporated in domestic legislation as soon as possible.

    Training of police officers lasted 10 months.  It stressed the rights of apprehended persons, including the right to be protected from violence, inhumane and degrading treatment.  All police officers had to abide by the code of professional ethnics and respect the dignity of persons.  They were trained on ethical means of restraint, bodily searches, the use of reasonable force, and the prohibition of torture.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed that there were no cases of torture in Monaco, but this could not be used as an excuse for not ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.  Crimes needed to be legislated for regardless of their prevalence. A national preventive mechanism would be mandated to investigate all places of deprivation of liberty, including the psychiatric hospital and airports.  It would be fantastic if a European country could ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.  Many of the 63,000 workers in Monaco were migrant workers who needed legal protection.

    Could detainees from Monaco be transferred to French prisons?  When there were criminal prosecutions of perpetrators, were alleged victims entitled to legal assistance?  Did the State party intend to provide the Supreme Council of the Judiciary with further independence?

    ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the dialogue had been constructive. Even if there was limited scope for implementing the Optional Protocol, ratification would set a positive example for other States.  Some 42 of the 46 members of the Council of Europe had ratified the Optional Protocol. Did the State party plan to remove its reservation to article 30 of the Convention.  Member States needed to continue to support the treaty body system in a sustainable manner.  What was Monaco’s position on this?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether Monaco had adopted measures addressing trade in equipment used to inflict pain and suffering.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the State party was not closing the door on ratifying the Optional Protocol; it was still considering the option.  However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments.  Impact assessment studies on these instruments took time due to the State’s limited resources.

    There were around 60,000 cross-border workers travelling from France or Italy to Monaco every day.  They were entitled to the rights embodied by Monaco’s labour laws.

    The Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance.  It took precedence over domestic legislation.  The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.

    Legal aid lasted from the beginning to the end of legal proceedings.

    There was no transfer of Monaco citizens to foreign prisons.  Transfers were only for foreign detainees who had requested a transfer back to their country of origin; such transfers were essentially humanitarian.

    The Supreme Council of the Judiciary promoted the independence of the judiciary.  It drew mostly on the French model.  The Secretary of State for Justice was responsible for appointing and promoting judges, but the Supreme Council approved appointments and promotions and could take up disciplinary cases on its own initiative.

    Concluding Remarks

    CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank.  The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention. The Committee did not judge States based on their size; it treated them all equally.

    SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue.  Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries, though staff numbers made this difficult.  The State tried to respond as best it could to its realities.  Monaco welcomed the Committee’s advice and relevant questions. Some issues had been raised that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees.  Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CAT25.002E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: In Dialogue with Niger, Experts of the Committee on Migrant Workers Commend the State on Legislation Protecting Migrants, Raise Issues Concerning Bilateral Agreements and the Migration Centre in Agadez

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on Migrant Workers today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Niger under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s legislation focused on the protection of migrants, while raising issues concerning bilateral agreements with other countries and the migration centre in Agadez. 

    Khaled Cheikhna Babacar, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur,

    welcomed that the Niger had ratified the 10 key International Labour Organization Conventions, 2018 legislation that included principles of social protection for migrants, and bilateral agreements that had been reached with neighbouring countries on migrant workers.

    Myriam Poussi, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said most of the bilateral agreements the Niger had reportedly formed with countries in the region were seemingly not applied.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Were the agreements with Türkiye and Morocco referred to in the report in effect?  The State party had yet to set up a committee to follow-up on the implementation of the agreement with Algeria.  What benefits were migrant workers provided with through the agreement with Tunisia?

    A Committee Expert said the reform of the law on illegal smuggling of migrants addressed the outsourcing of processing of migrants by the European Union to the migration centre in Agadez, which had led to increased trafficking in the region.  How was the State party addressing this situation?  Did the withdrawal of the Niger from the Economic Community of West African States impact the organization’s agreement on freedom of movement?

    Alio Daouda, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, said the legislation of the Niger guaranteed migrant workers access to social protection, including health and education.  Migrant workers had access to the competent administrative and judicial bodies in the event of violations of their rights and had access to free legal assistance and redress mechanisms.  The major obstacle to the realisation of human rights of migrant workers in the Niger remained terrorism, which had a profound negative impact on the realisation of human rights.   

    The delegation said the Niger had suspended bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, as these countries had violated these agreements, repatriating many migrants from the Niger. Every time the Niger formed a labour agreement, it set up a body to monitor the implementation of the agreement and protect workers’ rights.  The State party had conducted activities to ensure that private recruitment agencies were aware of their responsibilities to protect migrant workers.  Portions of migrant workers’ salaries could not be withheld by these agencies.

    The delegation said the humanitarian centre at Agadez hosted asylum seekers and refugees.  The State party was assessing asylum requests.  Transit centres managed by the International Organization for Migration were also in place that hosted migrants and processed their repatriation. Algeria expatriated about 500 foreign migrants to Agadez every month, forcing them to walk about 15 kilometres through the desert to reach the transit centres.  The Niger was calling on Algeria to change the way it expelled people, which violated the rights of these migrants. 

    In concluding remarks, Sabrina Gahar, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Niger’s report showed that the State was committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and their families.  However, there was still a lot to do to guarantee that the rights of migrant workers and members of their families were fully respected and protected.

    In his closing remarks, Mr. Daouda expressed gratitude for the attention given to the report and the efforts of the Niger to guarantee the basic rights of migrants and their families.  The State acknowledged the remaining challenges, but would tackle them with conviction and would step up efforts to meet the provisions under the Convention. 

    The delegation of Niger was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights; Department of Political, Administrative, Legal and Diplomatic Affairs; National Agency for the Fight against Trafficking in Persons; Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Employment; Ministry of the Interior, Public Security and Territorial Administration; and the Permanent Mission of Niger to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee on Migrant Workers’ fortieth session is being held from 7 to 17 April.  All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon, Wednesday, 9 April, to consider the combined initial and second periodic report of Jamaica (CMW/C/JAM/1-2).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the second periodic report of the Niger (CMW/C/NER/2).

    Presentation of the Report

    ALIO DAOUDA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, expressed sincere regret that the Convention currently had only 60 States parties, 34 of which were from the African continent.  No country among the main destinations of migrants had ratified it.  By acting together, in a spirit of universal solidarity, States could ensure a future for migrant workers based on the values of dignity, fairness and mutual respect.

    The events of 26 July 2023 had led to the coming to power of the Defence and Security Forces of the Niger.  This seizure of power, which immediately received popular support, was motivated by the rejection of security models and bad governance.  Following this change of regime, the State experienced unprecedented, illegal sanctions, decided by the Economic Community of West African States and the West African Economic and Monetary Union, materialised by the closure of borders, the cessation of the supply of foodstuffs and medicines, and the blocking of access to savings in banks. 

    These sanctions were guided by Western powers using regional and international organizations as tools for geopolitical domination.  They had deprived millions of innocent inhabitants, nationals and foreigners alike, of food, healthcare, medicine, education, freedom of movement, access to their savings, access to electricity, dignity and well-being, in the face of the deafening, complicit silence of international organizations.  The world needed to denounce this situation and work for an international order based on dignity and mutual respect.

    The National Council for the Safeguarding of the Homeland, upon its accession to power in July 2023, reaffirmed its commitment to respect human rights as defined by the treaties and conventions to which the country had freely subscribed.  The Niger, well-known for its hospitality as a country of transit and origin of migratory flows, attached particular importance to the protection of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families.

    In the context of the security situation, which had been marked by the recurrence of attacks by armed terrorist groups supported by foreign powers, the Niger had adopted ordinance no. 2023-02 of 28 July 2023 on the organization of public authorities during the transition period, and the 2025 Constitution, which guaranteed human rights as enshrined in international instruments.  The revised Labour Code had been developed to better protect migrant workers’ rights, while the revised Penal Code, which was in the process of being adopted, prohibited all forms of discrimination and harassment, including discrimination based on national origin.

    The legislation of the Niger guaranteed migrant workers access to social protection, including health and education. Migrant workers had access to the competent administrative and judicial bodies in the event of violations of their rights and had access to free legal assistance and redress mechanisms.  In addition, institutions had been set up to combat trafficking in persons and to manage migratory flows, particularly in transit regions such as Agadez.  The Niger was working closely with the International Organization for Migration to provide humanitarian assistance and build local capacity.  It was working to develop initiatives to provide accurate information to migrants, facilitating their access to legal identity documents and promoting ethical recruitment practices.

    Despite measures taken to combat migrant smuggling, criminal networks continued to exploit vulnerable migrants, especially women and children.  This situation was worsened by neighbouring countries that pushed back hundreds of migrants from the Niger and other countries to the territory of the Niger, despite the signing of several bilateral and regional agreements.  In 2022, 18,728 migrants were pushed back to the Niger.  In addition, conflicts in neighbouring countries and humanitarian crises were increasing the migratory pressure on the Niger, further complicating the implementation of migration policies.  In this context, revisions to the national employment and migration policies were being developed.  All these challenges required national, regional and international efforts to ensure that the rights of migrant workers were protected in an effective and sustainable manner.

    The major obstacle to the realisation of human rights of migrant workers in the Niger remained terrorism, which had a profound negative impact on the realisation of human rights.  Attacks in the border regions had led to massive displacement of populations, creating a humanitarian crisis that affected all rights.  These barbaric acts, which intended to sow fear and divide, would never succeed in shaking the State’s unity and resilience.

    The Niger was committed to honouring its international obligations and to working actively with the Committee to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the Niger had a border of over 7,000 kilometres and was affected by violence from Burkina Faso, Mali and Nigeria.  There were numerous migrants travelling through the Niger to Europe; many refugees were stranded in the desert and internally displaced persons were exploited by gangs and needed support.

    Mr. Babacar welcomed that the Niger had ratified the 10 key International Labour Organization Conventions.  Would it ratify conventions addressing migrant workers, domestic workers, workplace harassment and labour inspection?  Were there complaint mechanisms in place that workers in the informal sector, including domestic workers, could access? The Expert welcomed that the Labour Code was being revised; this was a good opportunity to address its shortcomings. Would the State party develop specific legislation to protect domestic workers?  Would the national action plan on migration be revised to include measures to promote the registration of the children of migrants?

    Mr. Babacar welcomed 2018 legislation that included principles of social protection for migrants, and bilateral agreements that had been reached with neighbouring countries on migrant workers.  What measures were included in these agreements that protected migrant workers’ rights, including the right to join trade unions?  The Niger permitted the activities of private recruitment agencies, which had abusive recruitment practices such as charging workers 20 per cent of their salaries. What would the Niger do to combat these practices?

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the State party’s report did not sufficiently describe the situation of migrant workers and provided incomplete information on activities being undertaken by the State.  Could the delegation provide more information about progress in reforming the Labour Code? What provisions of the Convention would be addressed in the Code?  How would the State party promote its implementation?  What had been achieved by the national action plan on migration? What activities had been organised in the last five years to promote and protect the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families?

    Could the delegation provide more information on the practice of wahaya? Were there plans to prosecute the perpetrators of this practice, which could be tantamount to a form of sexual slavery?  Female migrant workers could be victims of this practice.

    Most of the bilateral agreements the Niger had reportedly formed with countries in the region were seemingly not applied.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Were the agreements with Türkiye and Morocco referred to in the report in effect?  The State party had yet to set up a committee to follow-up on the implementation of the agreement with Algeria.  What benefits were migrant workers provided with through the agreement with Tunisia?

    What services did the Office for Returned Migrants provide and how many people had it helped?  What information was provided to the Niger diaspora and in what form?  How did the State register and support returnees to reintegrate into society, and promote the repatriation of funds by migrant workers to the Niger?  Had the State party established a joint committee on illegal smuggling and trafficking? What was the committee’s composition and mandate?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether returning Niger migrant workers were able to receive pensions.  Were civil servants informed about their obligations under the Convention?  What civil society organizations in the State party were dealing with the rights of migrant workers?  What dispute mechanisms were available for migrant workers?  Did the State party have information on detained migrant workers?  What legal support did the State party provide for migrant workers abroad?

    One Committee Expert asked how civil society organizations had contributed to the State party’s report.  Why had the State party not yet accepted articles 76 and 77 of the Convention, despite having expressed a desire to do so in 2022?

    A Committee Expert said the reform of the law on illegal smuggling of migrants addressed the outsourcing of processing of migrants by the European Union to the migration centre in Agadez, which had led to increased trafficking in the region.  How was the State party addressing this situation?  Did the withdrawal of the Niger from the Economic Community of West African States impact the organization’s agreement on freedom of movement?

    Another Committee Expert said migrants in the region were victims of deportation, incommunicado detention and other human rights violations, and many perished in the Sahara Desert.  How did the State party address these issues and protect migrants from refoulement? Why was there a comparatively low rate of migration from the Niger to Europe and the Americas?

    A Committee Expert asked whether the national mechanism for following up on treaty body recommendations cooperated with civil society organizations on issues related to migration.  What support did the Labour Ministry provide to migrants?  Why was the National Human Rights Commission dissolved in 2023?  Did the Commission deal with cases or issue recommendations related to migrant workers? When would a new national human rights institution be set up, what would its mandate be, and what resources would it have?  Many migrants being held in migration centres in the Niger were struggling to return to their countries of origin.  How was the State party supporting them?  Had courts referred to the provisions of the Convention, and had this had an impact on law or public policy on migration in the State party?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the Niger provided advice to migrants abroad so they were aware of their rights.  However, it had limited resources and could not devote additional resources to supporting this policy.

    The 2015 law on illegal smuggling included a provision criminalising the illegal crossing of borders that ran counter to the Palermo Protocol.  The Niger had thus repealed the law to bring it in line with the Protocol.  Migrants were made more vulnerable to traffickers under the law.  The State remained a member of the Economic Community of West African States and its agreement on freedom of movement.  Some countries and terrorist groups attacked territory of the Niger; the State party had implemented legal and policy measures to repel these attacks.

    The Niger had an inter-ministerial committee for developing State party reports that included members of civil society in the process.  The Niger continued to support civil society.

    Foreign workers in the Niger could join trade unions but needed to live in the country for three years to hold management positions in trade unions. Domestic workers and workers in the informal sector could submit complaints to trade unions.  The Labour Code included provisions enshrining the principle of non-discrimination and access to education and trade unions for migrant workers.

    The Niger had suspended bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, as these countries had violated these agreements, repatriating many migrants from the Niger.  Every time the Niger formed a labour agreement, it set up a body to monitor the implementation of the agreement and protect workers’ rights.  The State party had conducted activities to ensure that private recruitment agencies were aware of their responsibilities to protect migrant workers.  Portions of migrant workers’ salaries could not be withheld by these agencies.

    The Niger had ratified 41 International Labour Organization Conventions and two protocols.  It had implemented activities to protect domestic workers and disseminate the International Labour Organization Convention on domestic workers, with support from United Nations agencies.  The Niger had not yet ratified International Labour Organization Convention 190 on violence in the workplace but was working to do so, and conducting training on preventing such violence.

    The State party had ratified conventions on labour inspection and administration.  There were 10 labour inspectorates established in major towns.  Labour inspections were conducted regularly in the formal and informal sectors.  The Government had bolstered the capacities of inspectors through training, which stressed the importance of protecting migrant workers.  The revised Labour Code was still a draft.  The State party had identified deficiencies in the Code that it sought to review to align the Code with the Convention.

    The national migration policy included numerous measures to protect and support migrants and refugees and manage migration flows.  There was a law on the status of migrant workers that allowed migrants to be registered in the civil registry.  The births of the children of migrants were recorded.  A 2023 review on the implementation of the policy found progress had been made in police officers’ and civil society’s knowledge of migrants’ rights, thanks to training on this subject from the State. This training was being revised to address the impact of climate change on migrants.

    The humanitarian centre at Agadez hosted asylum seekers and refugees.  The State party was assessing asylum requests. Transit centres managed by the International Organization for Migration were also in place that hosted migrants and processed their repatriation.  Algeria expatriated about 500 foreign migrants to Agadez every month, forcing them to walk about 15 kilometres through the desert to reach the transit centres.  The Niger was calling on Algeria to change the way it expelled people, which violated the rights of these migrants.  There were some migrants who were forced to stay at transit centres for one year due to difficulties in identifying their countries of origin and repatriating them. The Niger could not afford to pay for repatriation flights for migrants.

    An inter-ministerial committee and a technical committee on repatriation of Niger nationals abroad were set up in 2024.  The former committee was tasked with managing returns and taking people to their towns of origin, while the latter conducted studies on repatriation and assisted reintegration activities.  Officials went to host countries to organise repatriation operations, which were paid for by the Niger.

    Questions by Committee Experts 

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked if the labour inspectors held a specific status, ensuring they had enough resources to perform their tasks impartially?  The Niger had a national action plan to combat child labour, with support from the International Labour Organization.  Had an assessment of the plan taken place? What actions had been taken in terms of planning after 2018?  The Niger had rolled out awareness raising campaigns for the labour market, which concluded in 2022; what actions had been undertaken since then?  Were there any possibilities for remedies or appeals against expulsions or deportations? 

    A Committee Expert commended the Niger for taking an inclusive approach to drafting the report; what was the consultation process followed during the preparation of the report?  Had external partners been consulted?  What was the role of civil society in the preparation of the report? Regarding multilateral agreements with several countries, what measures had been taken for children and women on the move from the Niger?  Had the Niger been able to pinpoint barriers in integrating the migration policy?  Could information be provided about the protection of the statistical data of migrants? 

    Could more details be provided about the specific causes of insecurity which had caused children to be displaced in the five regions? What measures had been taken to protect the rights of displaced children?  Was there a response plan to support internally displaced persons, including children?  What initiatives had been taken to ensure displaced children could have access to education?  What psycho-social support was available to these children?  Was there a mechanism to follow up on the number of children who were displaced? 

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the delegation had mentioned a tripartite memorandum between the Niger, the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which had provided assistance to hundreds of unaccompanied children.  How many children had received this assistance?  Could details of the beneficiaries of assistance be provided? Had the resettlement of these children in third countries taken place?  Which countries did this occur in?  How many children were affected by this settlement? 

    What had been the outcome of the strategy to strengthen systems along the migration route?  What was the timeline to ensure that the new protection strategy was finalised?  What was the hosting capacity of the six holistic centres, created to deal with gender-based violence?  How did they operate?  Did they fall under the management of a specific State body? What was the training provided to the individuals running these centres?  What assistance was provided to those living in these centres? 

    Another Committee Expert said the Niger faced security threats, including terrorism which could impact the services provided to migrant workers.  What measures had been taken in terms of training the military, border guards, the judiciary and other officials implementing the rights of migrant workers to respond to terrorism situations which involved migrants, in line with international best practices? 

    A Committee Expert said the Niger faced issues due to sanctions from European countries.  Did these countries take steps to support migrant workers from the Niger to improve their rights?  What types of consular services could the Niger provide for these workers? 

    Another Expert asked if the diaspora still had five of the 100 seats in the National Assembly reserved?  This was a very high figure.  Was the migration rate still 3.8 per cent?  What instruments governed the Niger now that the Constitution was suspended? Could the State elaborate on the situation of the national human rights body?  What was the true situation of statelessness in the country?  Was there legislation and data collection? 

    A Committee Expert asked if refugee children were actually refugees, or if there were migrants amongst them?  There were 237 unaccompanied children who were refugees and over 1,000 had been separated from their families in 2024.  What support was provided to these children?  Were they housed in the same camps as other migrants? What steps were taken to avoid situations of statelessness?  What was the State party doing to assist migrants returning to the Niger?  How was their reintegration being assisted and what support was being given?   

    The report from the High Commissioner found that there were migrants who were not from the Economic Community of West African States area, who had been subject to refoulment from Algeria, Syria, Egypt and Yemen.  These migrants were often denied access to the Niger, which was discriminatory and ran counter to international law.  The report stated these people were returned 500 kilometres northeast of the capital and could not submit a request for asylum.  Could the delegation comment on this?  What was the fate of these migrants?  What was being done to provide them with the international protection they were entitled to? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    Regarding people received from Syria and Yemen, the delegation said the State had its own problems when it came to managing domestic security and needed to allocate resources to its own people.  The situation in the Niger was complicated. The report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to one spontaneous refoulment relating to a specific population.  There were a number of resettlement programmes dedicated to these individuals. The Niger had never claimed that the fight against terrorism was a grounds to human rights not being respected. Why did the Committee not question those who financed terrorism, like the French, who wanted to steal the Niger’s resources?  These questions were disturbing.  Soldiers of the Niger did not violate the laws; they were trained on human rights issues. There were specific units within the army who dealt with criminal proceedings. 

    There were no financial resources provided to civil society to prepare and submit reports in the Niger.  Civil society was involved in the design of the reports; they participated on the same footing as all partners and made proposals.  Mobilising resources to civil society was a challenge, but they were involved in discussions.  In many countries of the subregion, the wahaya, or “fifth wives” practice existed, but the Niger had addressed this issue and sanctioned its practice. 

    The Niger had had security agencies run by foreigners who wanted to take part in the destabilisation of the regime.  Weapons of war had been found in the warehouses, under the control of France, to attack the Niger.  Therefore, there was no choice but to prohibit this profession to foreigners.  The State would not hesitate to take additional measures to protect its national security.
    Displaced children were sometimes displaced due to terrorism from Nigeria.  The Niger faced a problem in this regard.  There were a few countries whose populations had been refouled to the Niger. The Niger needed to focus on the resettlement of its own people in its own borders and could not always assist those returned to other countries.

    The term wahaya did not actually refer to a “fifth wife”; there was no marriage involved.  This referred to a woman who had been bought, given or exchanged.  It was defined as a form of slavery.  Civil society organizations were fully involved in all stages of the report, including data collection.  The 2023 ordinance superseded the Constitution and equated to the new Constitution.  This ordinance was for Government powers during the transition.  The ordinance was repealed last month after the new Charter was adopted.  The same rights in the Constitution were enshrined in this new State Charter, meaning there was no Constitutional vacuum. 

    The Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants had spent eight days in the Niger, during which he found that the 2015 ordinance ran counter to the Convention.  Banning migration meant migrants had to change their itineraries and take more dangerous roads, resulting in hundreds of deaths.  There were modules held throughout schools for training, as well as throughout the police, gendarmerie and judiciary.  The State went to remote areas to organise training workshops on the Convention and all other instruments entered into by the State. 

    The Niger was party to the two Conventions on Statelessness. Children who faced statelessness in the Niger who were in the country and met the necessary conditions could acquire citizenship.  Children whose parents were unknown could also apply for citizenship.  There were no stateless individuals in the country. 

    The diaspora document had been drafted by the private sector, civil society and the Government.  This was a guide for returnees who wished to contribute to the socio-economic development of the country.  The Niger had five seats in the National Assembly dedicated to the diaspora before the Constitution.  There were large communities of Niger nationals in Benin, Sudan and Burkina Faso, among others, which was the reason for this choice. 

    All the texts for the Human Rights Observatory were ready and it should be established soon.  It would have the same competencies as the Human Rights Commission.  In addition to the technical services in charge of migration, migrants also received training to ensure they could stay in the Niger. 

    Refugees could not be refouled to countries where their lives could be at risk, but migrants could go to courts with an expedited procedure. The Niger as a member country of the International Labour Organization was aware that the ratification of international labour standards would make it possible to guarantee the protection of migrant workers.  The resources available to the labour inspectors were lacking and while they had a specific status, they encountered difficulties in carrying out their everyday work.  To date, the Niger did not have a national action plan to combat child labour, but it was in the process of drafting this plan. 

    The bilateral agreements the Niger had signed with countries of destination each had their own specific features and focused on social security.  The Niger had made significant progress with Qatar and was in the process of drawing up a memorandum of understanding. 

    Refugee children from the Niger were not held together with adults, but were placed in foster families, who were supported to care for these children.  Children who had been placed in foster families benefitted from State support, free of charge health care, and access to school.  Their parents could have access to the justice system without any restrictions.  Despite meagre resources, the Niger had been able to welcome Africans from other nationalities and provide them with the necessary care. 

    Questions by Committee Experts 

    SABRINA GAHAR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked for more information about cooperation with non-governmental organizations?  How did the Government collaborate and cooperate to meet the specific needs of vulnerable groups?  The Committee commended the Niger on the strategy to combat gender-based violence.  Had an assessment of the strategy been conducted?  What were the success indicators?  Did the strategy concern harmful practices against migrant girls? 

    What measures were taken by the State to combat sexual violence against women and girls in certain regions?  It was reported that some women were trapped and forced into prostitution to survive.  They were forced into certain sexual practices with security agents at border posts, with some falling pregnant and contracting sexually transmitted diseases at an early age.  It was also reported that smugglers sold these women.  How did the State protect these women against smugglers and those involved in human trafficking?  What measures and strategies had been implemented to protect children from practices, such as begging? 

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what sanctions were handed down if the provisions of the Labour Code were violated?  What efforts had the State party made to guarantee better assistance to unaccompanied and separated children? 

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what was being done to ensure that the right of migrant workers to transfer social security benefits could be made effective?  What measures had Niger taken to fill the protection gaps for the rights of migrant workers who came from the Economic Commission of West African States? Was it planned to sign bilateral agreements to bridge the protection gap?  Could more information be provided about the joint teamwork made up of French, Spanish and Niger police to combat smugglers networks; was this work still ongoing?  How did the team work in combatting these networks? 

    An Expert asked what specific measures had been taken to assist migrants impacted by climate change?  Were there migrants in the various mining areas?  What kind of support was provided to them? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the Niger had established a human rights institution which had an A status, in line with the Paris Principles.  The State tried to find foster families for unaccompanied children in local communities, and supported them.  It could not be proven that women were forced into prostitution and to have sex with the defence forces.  In 2023, measures were taken to sanction security forces and efforts were taken to prosecute any officer committing offences. In Niger, the Labour Code was clear; those working fell under the protection of the Labour Code regardless of nationality.  Foreigners were protected by the Labour Code and if their rights were violated, there were remedies.  There were labour inspectorates for anyone whose rights were violated, and the inspectors were swamped by complaints.  All workers were aware of the inspectorate and did not hesitate to consult its members in the event of a violation of rights.  There were also labour courts which workers could access, whether they were nationals or foreigners. 

    Closing Remarks

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation of Niger for the dialogue and for attempting to reply to the Committee’s questions.  The candidacy of the delegation was appreciated.

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the presence of the delegation made it clear that the Niger had the clear intention of advancing the rights of migrants.  The State should continue to improve the situation for migrant workers in the country. 

    SABRINA GAHAR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for all the information provided and the interesting discussions had. The State’s report showed that Niger was committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and their families. The initiatives showed best practices and strategies aimed at improving migrants’ situations. However, there was still a lot to do to guarantee that the rights of migrant workers and the members of their families were fully respected and protected. 

    ALIO DAOUDA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, expressed gratitude for the attention given to the report and the efforts of the Niger to guarantee the basic rights of migrants and their families.  The interactive dialogue was vital to building a society where human rights and equity were accessible to all, including migrant workers.  The State acknowledged the remaining challenges, but would tackle them with conviction and would step up efforts to meet the provisions under the Convention.  The Niger looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations.  Mr. Daouda thanked all those who had made the dialogue possible. 

    ___________

     

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CMW25.003E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Weber Introduces Bill to Keep the SPR Strategic

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Randy Weber (14th District of Texas)

    Washington, D.C. -Today, U.S. Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14) introduced the Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act to prohibit the sale and export of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to China, or any entity that is under the ownership, control, or influence of China. 

    “The federal government should NEVER sell a single drop of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Communist China—our greatest geopolitical threat. Period. It is outrageous—and downright dangerous—that anyone in the White House would approve such a move, putting our national security at risk and sticking hardworking American taxpayers with the bill to refill it,” said Rep. Weber. “It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible, and it hits home—especially for us in Southeast Texas, where over 60% of the SPR is stored. We must pass this bill to ensure that no future president—certainly not another Joe Biden—can ever again willfully sell off our emergency reserves to the Chinese Communist Party.”

    Read the bill text here.

    The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives: Reps. Troy Balderson (OH-12), Andy Ogles (TN-5), Ryan Zinke (MT-1), Ben Cline (VA-6), Scott Franklin (FL-15), Daniel Webster (FL-11), Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Brian Babin (TX-36), Celeste Maloy (UT-2), Jefferson Shreve (IN-6), Dave Taylor (OH-2), Lauren Boebert (CO-4), and Stephanie Bice (OK-5), and Chris Smith (NJ-4). 

    MIL OSI USA News –