A Texas man is facing federal charges after allegedly purchasing powerful explosives in New Mexico and expressing plans to use them to harm law enforcement officers and government officials during riots in California.
According to court documents, on June 12, 2025, Grzegorz Vandenberg, 48, visited a travel center in Lordsburg, New Mexico, to purchase fireworks. During the transaction, Vandenberg requested assistance in selecting fireworks that could be thrown directly at people to cause harm. He told store employees that he was prior special forces military and claimed he could make pipe bombs. Vandenberg further stated that he was traveling to Los Angeles, California, for the riots, with the intent to kill law enforcement officers or government officials.
“This man allegedly intended to use the chaotic riots in Los Angeles as an opportunity to commit deadly violence against law enforcement officers,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Threats like these strike at the heart of law and order — we will not hesitate to bring federal charges against anyone who seeks to harm law enforcement or endanger the safety of our communities.”
“Our message is clear: If you come after law enforcement officers, the FBI will spare no effort to find you and bring you to justice,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “This defendant allegedly intended to use explosives to attack police officers currently conducting law enforcement operations in Los Angeles and – with the help of a store cashier who took down his license plate information – we were able to put a stop to that plan. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to serve the American people and the FBI will always do our part to protect them.”
“Targeting law enforcement with violence is not protest – it’s a crime,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison for the District of New Mexico. “Anyone who attempts to harm officers or undermine public safety will be held accountable. Protecting the safety of our communities and upholding the integrity of lawful demonstrations are priorities, and those who cross the line into violence will be prosecuted swiftly and to the fullest extent of the law.”
Store staff reported that Vandenberg asked for the largest explosives available and invited an employee to join him and his platoon in California. He also claimed to have mortar explosives in his possession and reiterated his plan to use them at the riots to kill officers. Vandenberg purchased six mortars, each containing 60 grams of gunpowder, and 36 large fireworks before leaving the store in a vehicle with Montana license plates, heading west on Interstate 10.
Vandenberg is charged with transporting explosives in interstate commerce with the knowledge and intent that they would be used to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals. He will remain in custody pending trial, which has not yet been scheduled. If convicted of the current charges, Vandenberg faces up to 10 years in federal prison.
The Las Cruces Resident Agency of the FBI’s Albuquerque Field Office investigated this case with assistance from the Tucson Resident Agency of the FBI’s Phoenix Field Office, Tucson Police Department, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) El Paso.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joni Stahl and Grant Gardner for the District of New Mexico are prosecuting the case, with valuable assistance provided by Trial Attorney Patrick Cashman of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
A criminal complaint is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Sentencings Conclude the Northern District of California’s Successful Prosecution of 40 Members and Associates of the Violent Prison Gang
OAKLAND – Four top leaders of the Nuestra Familia (NF) prison gang were sentenced today to federal prison terms ranging from 120 months to 175 months following their convictions at trial for racketeering conspiracy. David Cervantes, aka “DC,” was sentenced to 120 months; James Perez, aka “Conejo,” was sentenced to 120 months; Guillermo Solorio, aka “Capone,” aka “Caps,” was sentenced to 175 months; and George Franco, aka “Puppet,” was sentenced to 175 months. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down the sentences.
The sentences follow a three-month trial in 2024, which established that the four defendants—Cervantes, 76; Perez, 70; Solorio, 45; and Franco, 59—were senior members of the NF prison gang, serving on the General Council, the primary decision-making body for the gang. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, all four defendants held a leadership role in a lucrative and violent criminal enterprise that engaged in murder conspiracies, attempted murder, drug distribution, and money laundering:
Cervantes was one of three “Generals” who sat atop the NF organizational structure, specifically the “General Advocates Office,” and made final decisions on serious matters involving governance of the enterprise. As the sole member of the General Advocates Office, Cervantes oversaw member discipline, a role that included deciding when members should be attacked or killed for violating gang rules.
Perez was another General of the prison gang, specifically, the “General of Prisons.” In this role, Perez was responsible for maintaining authority over all NF regiments and NF criminal activity within the California prison system.
Franco was a member of the NF’s “Inner Council” and was Regimental Commander of San Joaquin County. As a member of the Inner Council, Franco was an advisor to the three NF Generals (two of whom were Cervantes and Perez) and was part of the General Council that, in addition to member discipline, made other significant decisions in conducting the affairs of the NF.
Solorio was likewise part of the NF “Inner Council” and was an advisor to the NF Generals. Solorio also was the Regimental Commander over the Monterey County Street Regiment, overseeing criminal activity, including largescale drug trafficking, by subservient Norteno street gangs.
“The brutal violence and drug trafficking that this criminal enterprise ran from within state prisons touched every county in the Bay Area. With these sentences, 40 gang leaders and associates have now been convicted and brought to justice for the violence they caused inside and outside prison walls, and the community is now safer as a result,” said United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian. “These convictions would not have been possible without the dedicated work of our law enforcement partners across multiple agencies and jurisdictions and the talented lawyers and staff from within our office.”
“The sentencing of these four top Nuestra Familia gang leaders marks the final chapter in the successful dismantling of one of the most violent and entrenched prison gangs operating in California. Through sustained, coordinated efforts with our law enforcement partners, we have brought to justice 40 members and associates of this dangerous gang who spread violence and fear inside prison walls and outside throughout our communities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani. “This case demonstrates the FBI’s unwavering commitment to rooting out organized criminal enterprises and protecting the public from those who use intimidation and brutality to maintain power.”
The sentencings of these four defendants mark the successful completion of the prosecution of NF leadership in the Northern District of California. Forty Nuestra Familia members and associates, including defendants both on the streets and in California state prisons, have now been convicted and sentenced. This includes all seven members of the NF’s General Council, its entire senior leadership team, as detailed in the table below:
Defendant
Convictions
Sentence Imposed
David Cervantes aka “DC”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for three attempted murders and two murder conspiracies
120 months
James Perez aka “Conejo”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for two attempted murders and two murder conspiracies
120 months
Antonio Guillen aka “Chuco”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for two murder conspiracies and one attempted murder
175 months
George Franco aka “Puppet”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for one attempted murder and one murder conspiracy
175 months
Guillermo Solorio aka “Capone”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with a special finding for attempted murder
175 months
Trinidad Martinez aka “Trino”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for one attempted murder
144 months
Samuel Luna aka “Sammy”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for four murder conspiracies and one attempted murder
175 months
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mari Overbeck, Leif Dautch, and Aseem Padukone of the Violent Crime Strike Force prosecuted this case, with the assistance of Veronica Hernandez and Kevin Costello. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI (San Francisco, Sacramento, and Phoenix Divisions, and Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit), the DEA, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshal Service, with the assistance of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, and the San Jose Police Department, and with support from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Antioch Police Department, Campbell Police Department, Fremont Police Department, King’s County Sheriff’s Office, Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain View Police Department, Sacramento Police Department, Salinas Police Department, Menlo Park Police Department, Santa Clara County Parole Department, Santa Clara County Probation Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, Modesto Police Department, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Francisco Police Department, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, and Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety.
This investigation and prosecution was part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, which identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Sentencings Conclude the Northern District of California’s Successful Prosecution of 40 Members and Associates of the Violent Prison Gang
OAKLAND – Four top leaders of the Nuestra Familia (NF) prison gang were sentenced today to federal prison terms ranging from 120 months to 175 months following their convictions at trial for racketeering conspiracy. David Cervantes, aka “DC,” was sentenced to 120 months; James Perez, aka “Conejo,” was sentenced to 120 months; Guillermo Solorio, aka “Capone,” aka “Caps,” was sentenced to 175 months; and George Franco, aka “Puppet,” was sentenced to 175 months. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down the sentences.
The sentences follow a three-month trial in 2024, which established that the four defendants—Cervantes, 76; Perez, 70; Solorio, 45; and Franco, 59—were senior members of the NF prison gang, serving on the General Council, the primary decision-making body for the gang. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, all four defendants held a leadership role in a lucrative and violent criminal enterprise that engaged in murder conspiracies, attempted murder, drug distribution, and money laundering:
Cervantes was one of three “Generals” who sat atop the NF organizational structure, specifically the “General Advocates Office,” and made final decisions on serious matters involving governance of the enterprise. As the sole member of the General Advocates Office, Cervantes oversaw member discipline, a role that included deciding when members should be attacked or killed for violating gang rules.
Perez was another General of the prison gang, specifically, the “General of Prisons.” In this role, Perez was responsible for maintaining authority over all NF regiments and NF criminal activity within the California prison system.
Franco was a member of the NF’s “Inner Council” and was Regimental Commander of San Joaquin County. As a member of the Inner Council, Franco was an advisor to the three NF Generals (two of whom were Cervantes and Perez) and was part of the General Council that, in addition to member discipline, made other significant decisions in conducting the affairs of the NF.
Solorio was likewise part of the NF “Inner Council” and was an advisor to the NF Generals. Solorio also was the Regimental Commander over the Monterey County Street Regiment, overseeing criminal activity, including largescale drug trafficking, by subservient Norteno street gangs.
“The brutal violence and drug trafficking that this criminal enterprise ran from within state prisons touched every county in the Bay Area. With these sentences, 40 gang leaders and associates have now been convicted and brought to justice for the violence they caused inside and outside prison walls, and the community is now safer as a result,” said United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian. “These convictions would not have been possible without the dedicated work of our law enforcement partners across multiple agencies and jurisdictions and the talented lawyers and staff from within our office.”
“The sentencing of these four top Nuestra Familia gang leaders marks the final chapter in the successful dismantling of one of the most violent and entrenched prison gangs operating in California. Through sustained, coordinated efforts with our law enforcement partners, we have brought to justice 40 members and associates of this dangerous gang who spread violence and fear inside prison walls and outside throughout our communities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani. “This case demonstrates the FBI’s unwavering commitment to rooting out organized criminal enterprises and protecting the public from those who use intimidation and brutality to maintain power.”
The sentencings of these four defendants mark the successful completion of the prosecution of NF leadership in the Northern District of California. Forty Nuestra Familia members and associates, including defendants both on the streets and in California state prisons, have now been convicted and sentenced. This includes all seven members of the NF’s General Council, its entire senior leadership team, as detailed in the table below:
Defendant
Convictions
Sentence Imposed
David Cervantes aka “DC”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for three attempted murders and two murder conspiracies
120 months
James Perez aka “Conejo”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for two attempted murders and two murder conspiracies
120 months
Antonio Guillen aka “Chuco”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for two murder conspiracies and one attempted murder
175 months
George Franco aka “Puppet”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for one attempted murder and one murder conspiracy
175 months
Guillermo Solorio aka “Capone”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with a special finding for attempted murder
175 months
Trinidad Martinez aka “Trino”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for one attempted murder
144 months
Samuel Luna aka “Sammy”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering conspiracy, with special findings for four murder conspiracies and one attempted murder
175 months
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mari Overbeck, Leif Dautch, and Aseem Padukone of the Violent Crime Strike Force prosecuted this case, with the assistance of Veronica Hernandez and Kevin Costello. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI (San Francisco, Sacramento, and Phoenix Divisions, and Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit), the DEA, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshal Service, with the assistance of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, and the San Jose Police Department, and with support from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Antioch Police Department, Campbell Police Department, Fremont Police Department, King’s County Sheriff’s Office, Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain View Police Department, Sacramento Police Department, Salinas Police Department, Menlo Park Police Department, Santa Clara County Parole Department, Santa Clara County Probation Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, Modesto Police Department, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Francisco Police Department, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, and Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety.
This investigation and prosecution was part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, which identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
NEWARK, N.J. – Today, Myron Williams, a/k/a “Money,” a/k/a “Tunchi,” 31, of Newark was sentenced before the Honorable Michael E. Farbiarz to life imprisonment for racketeering conspiracy, life imprisonment for murder in aid of racketeering, 240 months’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and 120 months’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, with all sentences to run consecutively.
Williams’s co-defendant Khalil Kelley, a/k/a “Billski,” 26, of Jersey City, was previously sentenced on June 5, 2025, to life imprisonment, plus a consecutive ten-year term of imprisonment for racketeering conspiracy, for his role in the Marion Gardens street gang and a gang-related murder.
Also today, Jawaad Davis, 23, of Jersey City, was sentenced to 170 months’ imprisonment for his role in the Marion Gardens street gang, which included orchestrating a robbery that resulted in murder.
Eight other individuals are pending sentencing. Roger Pickett, a/k/a “Zy G,” 24, of Jersey City was convicted at trial along with Williams and Kelley. The remaining defendants—Herbert Thomas, 49, of Jersey City; Andre Alomar, a/k/a “Dre8,” 24, of Newark; Naim Richardson, a/k/a “Ninicks,” 32, of Jersey City; Anthony Rogers, a/k/a “MG,” 25, of Jersey City; Quaseame Wilson, a/k/a “Qua Gz,” 28, of Jersey City; Javon Williams, a/k/a “J45,” 28, of Jersey City; and Keith Anderson, a/k/a “Beef3,” 23, of Jersey City—all pled guilty before trial. Each defendant will be sentenced before Judge Farbiarz in Newark as follows:
Anthony Rogers, a/k/a “MG”
June 26, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.
Quaseame Wilson, a/k/a “Qua Gz”
July 1, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.
Andre Alomar, a/k/a “Dre8”
July 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Roger Pickett, a/k/a “Zy G”
July 2, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Keith Anderson, a/k/a “Beef3”
July 2, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.
Javon Williams, a/k/a “J45”
July 2, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Naim Richardson, a/k/a “Ninicks”
July 16, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
Herbert Thomas
October 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Myron Williams, Khalil Kelley, Roger Pickett, Jawaad Davis, Anthony Rogers, Quaseame Wilson, Andre Alomar, Keith Anderson, Javon Williams, and Naim Richardson are all members and associates of the neighborhood street gang associated with the Marion Gardens Housing Complex. Since 2013, they and their fellow gang members have committed numerous acts of violence, including three separate murders, on March 29, 2021, Nov. 20, 2021, and Nov. 1, 2022.
On March 29, 2021, Kelley and other gang members lured a rival gang member outside by sending him Instagram messages pretending to be the victim’s fellow gang member. When the victim opened the door to his residence, Kelley and another gang member brandished firearms, and the victim was shot multiple times in the chest, killing him. Pickett and Myron Williams then picked up Kelley and other gang members after they abandoned the murder vehicle in Newark.
On Nov. 20, 2021, Myron Williams, Pickett, and Richardson lured a rival gang member outside by sending him Instagram messages pretending to be the second victim’s fellow gang member. Williams and another gang member shot the victim when he opened the door to his residence.
On Nov. 1, 2022, Davis facilitated the murder of the third victim by coordinating a narcotics transaction with the victim and the victim’s associate. When the victim and his associate arrived at the Marion Gardens Housing Complex to complete the narcotics transaction, they were robbed of their narcotics supply. During the robbery, Pickett and Wilson held the victim and his associate at gunpoint. After a struggle ensued, Pickett shot and killed the victim while his associate fled. Pickett then fled the Marion Gardens Housing Complex with Wilson.
For months, investigators observed and documented hundreds of narcotics transactions in and around the Marion Gardens Housing Complex. The investigation likewise revealed that Herbert Thomas was a primary supplier of narcotics to the Marion Gardens street gang.
When each defendant was arrested on March 17, 2023, law enforcement seized contraband at several different locations, including heroin, fentanyl, crack cocaine, narcotics packaging materials, ammunition, bulletproof vests, and a loaded handgun.
U.S. Attorney Habba credited investigators of the Gang Intelligence Unit and the Homicide Unit of the Major Case Division of Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Esther Suarez, and special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L.C. Cheeks Jr., and investigators of the Jersey City Police Department, under the direction of Director James Shea, with the investigation leading to the convictions. He also thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Stefanie Roddy, and the U.S. Marshals, under the direction of U.S. Marshal Juan Mattos, for their assistance.
This investigation was conducted as part of the Jersey City Violent Crime Initiative (VCI). The VCI was formed in 2018 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Jersey City Police Department, for the sole purpose of combatting violent crime in and around Jersey City. As part of this partnership, federal, state, county, and city agencies collaborate to strategize and prioritize the prosecution of violent offenders who endanger the safety of the community. The VCI is composed of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, the ATF, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) New Jersey Division, the U.S. Marshals, the Department of Homeland Security – Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), the Jersey City Police Department, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, the Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, New Jersey State Parole, the Hudson County Jail, and the New Jersey State Police Regional Operations and Intelligence Center/Real Time Crime Center.
The government is represented by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Maloy and Javon Henry, of the Organized Crime and Gangs Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Division in Newark.
###
Defense counsel:
Myron Williams – William Strazza, Esq. Jawaad Davis – Jason Orlando, Esq. and Tyler Newman, Esq.
Khalil Kelley – Kevin Buchan, Esq. and James Seplowitz, Esq.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
NEWARK, N.J. – Today, Myron Williams, a/k/a “Money,” a/k/a “Tunchi,” 31, of Newark was sentenced before the Honorable Michael E. Farbiarz to life imprisonment for racketeering conspiracy, life imprisonment for murder in aid of racketeering, 240 months’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and 120 months’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, with all sentences to run consecutively.
Williams’s co-defendant Khalil Kelley, a/k/a “Billski,” 26, of Jersey City, was previously sentenced on June 5, 2025, to life imprisonment, plus a consecutive ten-year term of imprisonment for racketeering conspiracy, for his role in the Marion Gardens street gang and a gang-related murder.
Also today, Jawaad Davis, 23, of Jersey City, was sentenced to 170 months’ imprisonment for his role in the Marion Gardens street gang, which included orchestrating a robbery that resulted in murder.
Eight other individuals are pending sentencing. Roger Pickett, a/k/a “Zy G,” 24, of Jersey City was convicted at trial along with Williams and Kelley. The remaining defendants—Herbert Thomas, 49, of Jersey City; Andre Alomar, a/k/a “Dre8,” 24, of Newark; Naim Richardson, a/k/a “Ninicks,” 32, of Jersey City; Anthony Rogers, a/k/a “MG,” 25, of Jersey City; Quaseame Wilson, a/k/a “Qua Gz,” 28, of Jersey City; Javon Williams, a/k/a “J45,” 28, of Jersey City; and Keith Anderson, a/k/a “Beef3,” 23, of Jersey City—all pled guilty before trial. Each defendant will be sentenced before Judge Farbiarz in Newark as follows:
Anthony Rogers, a/k/a “MG”
June 26, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.
Quaseame Wilson, a/k/a “Qua Gz”
July 1, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.
Andre Alomar, a/k/a “Dre8”
July 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Roger Pickett, a/k/a “Zy G”
July 2, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Keith Anderson, a/k/a “Beef3”
July 2, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.
Javon Williams, a/k/a “J45”
July 2, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Naim Richardson, a/k/a “Ninicks”
July 16, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
Herbert Thomas
October 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Myron Williams, Khalil Kelley, Roger Pickett, Jawaad Davis, Anthony Rogers, Quaseame Wilson, Andre Alomar, Keith Anderson, Javon Williams, and Naim Richardson are all members and associates of the neighborhood street gang associated with the Marion Gardens Housing Complex. Since 2013, they and their fellow gang members have committed numerous acts of violence, including three separate murders, on March 29, 2021, Nov. 20, 2021, and Nov. 1, 2022.
On March 29, 2021, Kelley and other gang members lured a rival gang member outside by sending him Instagram messages pretending to be the victim’s fellow gang member. When the victim opened the door to his residence, Kelley and another gang member brandished firearms, and the victim was shot multiple times in the chest, killing him. Pickett and Myron Williams then picked up Kelley and other gang members after they abandoned the murder vehicle in Newark.
On Nov. 20, 2021, Myron Williams, Pickett, and Richardson lured a rival gang member outside by sending him Instagram messages pretending to be the second victim’s fellow gang member. Williams and another gang member shot the victim when he opened the door to his residence.
On Nov. 1, 2022, Davis facilitated the murder of the third victim by coordinating a narcotics transaction with the victim and the victim’s associate. When the victim and his associate arrived at the Marion Gardens Housing Complex to complete the narcotics transaction, they were robbed of their narcotics supply. During the robbery, Pickett and Wilson held the victim and his associate at gunpoint. After a struggle ensued, Pickett shot and killed the victim while his associate fled. Pickett then fled the Marion Gardens Housing Complex with Wilson.
For months, investigators observed and documented hundreds of narcotics transactions in and around the Marion Gardens Housing Complex. The investigation likewise revealed that Herbert Thomas was a primary supplier of narcotics to the Marion Gardens street gang.
When each defendant was arrested on March 17, 2023, law enforcement seized contraband at several different locations, including heroin, fentanyl, crack cocaine, narcotics packaging materials, ammunition, bulletproof vests, and a loaded handgun.
U.S. Attorney Habba credited investigators of the Gang Intelligence Unit and the Homicide Unit of the Major Case Division of Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Esther Suarez, and special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L.C. Cheeks Jr., and investigators of the Jersey City Police Department, under the direction of Director James Shea, with the investigation leading to the convictions. He also thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Stefanie Roddy, and the U.S. Marshals, under the direction of U.S. Marshal Juan Mattos, for their assistance.
This investigation was conducted as part of the Jersey City Violent Crime Initiative (VCI). The VCI was formed in 2018 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Jersey City Police Department, for the sole purpose of combatting violent crime in and around Jersey City. As part of this partnership, federal, state, county, and city agencies collaborate to strategize and prioritize the prosecution of violent offenders who endanger the safety of the community. The VCI is composed of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, the ATF, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) New Jersey Division, the U.S. Marshals, the Department of Homeland Security – Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), the Jersey City Police Department, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, the Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, New Jersey State Parole, the Hudson County Jail, and the New Jersey State Police Regional Operations and Intelligence Center/Real Time Crime Center.
The government is represented by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Maloy and Javon Henry, of the Organized Crime and Gangs Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Division in Newark.
###
Defense counsel:
Myron Williams – William Strazza, Esq. Jawaad Davis – Jason Orlando, Esq. and Tyler Newman, Esq.
Khalil Kelley – Kevin Buchan, Esq. and James Seplowitz, Esq.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
PALM BEACH, Fla., June 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FN Media GroupNews Commentary – The market for abuse-deterrent opioids is still developing, but it’s estimated that replacing extended-release opioids with abuse-deterrent formulations could lead to significant cost savings and a reduction in abuse-related medical events. While specific revenue figures for the abuse-deterrent opioid market are not readily available, the potential impact on the broader opioid market is substantial. One such report from Roots Analysis, however, did project revenues, saying: “The abuse deterrent formulations market is estimated to grow from USD 25.7 million in 2024 to reach USD 39.8 million in 2025 and USD 54.8 million by 2030, representing a higher CAGR of 6.6% during the forecast period. Although the healthcare industry relies on patient to take medications responsibly, in 2017, close to 18 million individuals were reported to have misused prescription drugs, in the US. In fact, data from a National Survey on Drug Use and Health conducted in the same year, showed that an estimated 2 million Americans misused prescription pain relievers for the first time in the previous year. Moreover, the same study reported 1.5 million people abusing tranquilizers, over 1 million abusing prescription stimulants and more than 270,000 abusing sedatives, for the first time, in the same time period. Owing to a rapid onset of medicinal effect, which offers immediate relief (with high efficacy), opioids are still considered to be one of the most widely used pharmacological interventions for pain management. However, these drugs are known to induce a euphoric state upon consumption, often causing patients to abuse them; increased recreational use of opioids is known to lead to addiction. Moreover, over-prescription of such medicinal products, which promotes their misuse, is considered as one of the root causes of the opioid crisis (increasing number of deaths involving misuse and addiction to opioids), in the US. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 72,000 overdose-related deaths were reported in 2017, of which close to 50,000 involved the use of an opioid.” Active healthcare/tech companies active in the markets include: Nutriband Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRB) (NASDAQ: NTRBW), Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NASDAQ: COLL), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA), Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS).
Moreover, opioid abuse was estimated to have been responsible for an economic deficit of over USD 500 billion, related to loss of productivity and healthcare costs, in the US. Other drug classes that are prone to abuse include antidepressants and central nervous system (CNS) stimulants such as fentanyl and klonopin. In 2017, close to 17,000 deaths were reported to have been the result of an overdose of prescription antidepressants. Most of these deaths (~11,500) involved the misuse of benzodiazepines, such as VALIUM® (diazepam) and XANAX® (alprazolam). CNS stimulants are usually indicated for the treatment of patients suffering from attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among the various overdose-related deaths which took place in 2017, it is worth highlighting that over 12% involved the use of psychostimulants. Prescription drug abuse has prompted pharmaceutical developers to devise various strategies to prevent misuse. Some of the commonly used approaches to abuse deterrence include limiting use of opioids post-surgery, implementing stringent medicine prescribing guidelines and conducting prescription drug monitoring programs, and creating abuse deterrent formulations (ADFs) of drugs that are likely to be misused. Drug formulations that are designed to prevent an active pharmacological substance from being abused have been identified as a viable and sustainable alternative to limiting recreational / off-prescription use of the abovementioned drug classes and its consequences.”
NUTRIBAND INC. (NASDAQ: NTRB)AND KINDEVA COMPLETE COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS SCALE-UP FOR AVERSA™ FENTANYL ABUSE DETERRENT FENTANYL PATCH
Nutriband and Kindeva have completed commercial manufacturing process scale-up for its lead product Aversa™ Fentanyl, an abuse-deterrent fentanyl patch
Nutriband is partnering with Kindeva to develop Aversa™ Fentanyl which combines Nutriband’s Aversa™ abuse-deterrent technology with Kindeva’s FDA-approved fentanyl patch
Nutriband Inc.(NASDAQ:NTRB) (NASDAQ:NTRBW), a company engaged in the development of prescription transdermal pharmaceutical products, today announced that it has completed commercial manufacturing process scale-up for its lead product, Aversa™ Fentanyl, with Kindeva, a leading global contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) focused on drug-device combination products.
Nutriband is partnering with Kindeva to develop Aversa™ Fentanyl which combines Nutriband’s Aversa™ abuse-deterrent technology with Kindeva’s FDA-approved fentanyl patch. Aversa Fentanyl is manufactured at Kindeva’s state-of-the-art transdermal manufacturing facility located in the United States. The next step is to manufacture clinical supplies and file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the FDA to initiate a human abuse liability clinical study.
“We are excited to achieve this commercial development milestone with our partner, Kindeva. Completing the commercial manufacturing scale-up is an important step towards development of a commercially viable product and eventual NDA filing. This achievement demonstrates the compatibility of the Aversa™ abuse deterrent platform technology with established transdermal patch manufacturing processes. Aversa Fentanyl has the potential to be the first abuse deterrent pain patch on the market,” said Gareth Sheridan, CEO, Nutriband.
Nutriband’s AVERSA™ abuse-deterrent technology can be utilized to incorporate aversive agents into transdermal patches to prevent the abuse, diversion, misuse, and accidental exposure of drugs with abuse potential including opioids and stimulants. The AVERSA™ abuse-deterrent technology has the potential to improve the safety profile of transdermal drugs susceptible to abuse, such as fentanyl, while making sure that these drugs remain accessible to those patients who really need them.
AVERSA Fentanyl has the potential to be the world’s first abuse-deterrent opioid patch designed to deter the abuse and misuse and reduce the risk of accidental exposure of transdermal fentanyl patches. CONTINUED…Read this full press release and more news for NTRB at:https://www.financialnewsmedia.com/news-ntrb
In other developments and happenings in the biotech market recently include:
Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE)announced involvement in the Abuse Deterrent Market stating that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved an updated label for EMBEDA® (morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride) extended-release (ER) capsules, for oral use, CII, to include abuse-deterrence studies. The updated label states that EMBEDA has properties that are expected to reduce abuse via the oral and intranasal (i.e., snorting) routes when crushed. However, abuse of EMBEDA by these routes is still possible. The updated label also includes data from a human abuse potential study of intravenous (IV) morphine and naltrexone to simulate crushed EMBEDA. However, it is unknown whether the results with simulated crushed EMBEDA predict a reduction in abuse by the IV route until additional postmarketing data are available. EMBEDA is indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. Pfizer expects EMBEDA will be available in the U.S. in early 2015.
“Prescription opioids are an important treatment option for people with chronic pain. However, misuse and abuse of opioids in the U.S. is a serious societal concern, which is why the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of these medicines is a high priority,” said Bob Twillman, Ph.D., Director of Policy and Advocacy, American Academy of Pain Management. “All opioid medications, including morphine products, have the potential for abuse. We believe that anything that can be done to reduce this risk is a significant development for healthcare providers and their patients.”
Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NASDAQ:COLL) also announced involvement in the Abuse Deterrent Market by stating that U.S. Patent No. 9,044,398 was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for its patent application entitled, “Abuse-deterrent Pharmaceutical Compositions of Opioids and Other Drugs”. The issued patent covers the DETERx technology platform and Collegium’s lead product candidate, Xtampza ER (oxycodone extended-release capsules). The claims provide additional coverage for multiple opioid molecules, as well as non-opioid drugs prone to abuse that are developed with the DETERx technology platform. This is the seventh issued U.S. patent related to the DETERx technology platform.
“This newly issued patent expands our patent coverage for our lead product candidate, Xtampza ER, and the DETERx technology platform. We have a number of additional patent applications currently undergoing the patent prosecution process that, if issued, would continue to protect Xtampza ER, the DETERx technology platform, and additional product candidates in the U.S. and internationally,” said Michael Heffernan, Chairman and CEO of Collegium.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE:TEVA)announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved VANTRELATM ER (hydrocodone bitartrate) extended-release tablets [CII] formulated with Teva’s proprietary abuse deterrence technology. VANTRELA ER is indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. The product’s approval is supported by a clinical program that evaluated the safety and efficacy of VANTRELA ER, as well as its abuse potential in laboratory-based in vitro manipulation and extraction studies, pharmacokinetic studies, and clinical abuse potential (CAP) studies.
“Teva understands the risk of prescription drug abuse is a challenge healthcare professionals face when treating millions of Americans affected by chronic pain,” said Rob Koremans, MD, President and CEO of Global Specialty Medicines at Teva. “Abuse-deterrent treatments provide options for prescribers that may help deter or mitigate abuse while still preserving access to pain medications for the patients that need them most.”
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) is teaming up with Victoria’s Voice Foundation to rally Americans to help save lives from the opioid epidemic on National Naloxone Awareness Day, which honors the late Victoria Siegel and others who have succumbed to overdose. As part of the effort, Victoria’s Voice has launched the “Shine. Wear. Share. Care” campaign to raise awareness and provide educational resources to individuals, organizations and businesses that includes a purple light bulb (Shine), a wearable promotional item (Wear), a QR code encouraging participation in the #sharenaloxone social media campaign (Share) and a box of NARCAN® Nasal Spray (Care) provided by Emergent.
“It’s been 10 years since our Victoria lost her life to an accidental opioid overdose and we remain fiercely committed to honoring her memory and the memory of others who have succumbed to this same tragedy by fostering open dialogue about the dangers of opioids and precautionary safety measures, so other families don’t have to experience the same tragedy,” said Jackie Siegel, of Victoria’s Voice Foundation. “We’re pleased that Emergent is our sponsor for this year’s National Naloxone Awareness Day to further our shared mission of saving as many lives as possible through naloxone education and distribution.”
About FN Media Group:
At FN Media Group, via our top-rated online news portal at www.financialnewsmedia.com, we are one of the very few select firms providing top tier one syndicated news distribution, targeted ticker tag press releases and stock market news coverage for today’s emerging companies. #tickertagpressreleases #pressreleases
DISCLAIMER: FN Media Group LLC (FNM), which owns and operates FinancialNewsMedia.com and MarketNewsUpdates.com, is a third party publisher and news dissemination service provider, which disseminates electronic information through multiple online media channels. FNM is NOT affiliated in any manner with any company mentioned herein. FNM and its affiliated companies are a news dissemination solutions provider and are NOT a registered broker/dealer/analyst/adviser, holds no investment licenses and may NOT sell, offer to sell or offer to buy any security. FNM’s market updates, news alerts and corporate profiles are NOT a solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. The material in this release is intended to be strictly informational and is NEVER to be construed or interpreted as research material. All readers are strongly urged to perform research and due diligence on their own and consult a licensed financial professional before considering any level of investing in stocks. All material included herein is republished content and details which were previously disseminated by the companies mentioned in this release. FNM is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment when investing in stocks. For current services performed FNM expects to be compensated forty two hundred dollars for news coverage of the current press releases issued by Nutriband Inc. by the company. FNM HOLDS NO SHARES OF ANY COMPANY NAMED IN THIS RELEASE.
This release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. “Forward-looking statements” describe future expectations, plans, results, or strategies and are generally preceded by words such as “may”, “future”, “plan” or “planned”, “will” or “should”, “expected,” “anticipates”, “draft”, “eventually” or “projected”. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, including the risks that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, and other risks identified in a company’s annual report on Form 10-K or 10-KSB and other filings made by such company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements included herein, and not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements in this release are made as of the date hereof and FNM undertakes no obligation to update such statements.
Contact Information:
Media Contact email: editor@financialnewsmedia.com – +1(561)325-8757
CLARKSBURG, WV—On Tuesday, June 17, 2025, FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division Assistant Director Timothy A. Ferguson presented the Harrison County (West Virginia) Deputy Reserve Program with the FBI Director’s Community Leadership Award (DCLA) for its service to citizens in West Virginia. The Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program is dedicated to strengthening relationships between law enforcement and the community.
The FBI established the DCLA in 1990 to publicly acknowledge the achievements of those working to make a difference in their communities through the promotion of education and the prevention of crime and violence.
“The FBI’s successes are built on our connections with our law enforcement partners and our communities,” said CJIS Division Assistant Director Ferguson. “Having partner organizations such as the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program that engage with the public ensures we are able to maintain public trust and accountability, crush violent crime, and defend the homeland.”
The Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program is a non-profit organization comprised of volunteers who support law enforcement and the community in a myriad of ways. The organization’s members are trained to assist in missing persons’ searches and traffic incident management. They hold monthly meetings that provide opportunities to connect state, local, and federal law enforcement. They also provide platforms for the FBI’s CJIS Division to reach community members via the CJIS Community Outreach Program’s Child ID Fingerprinting—a service that gives parents and guardians copies of their children’s fingerprints. The family can then turn over the fingerprints and accompanying headshots, which are not stored in any FBI system, to police in the event a child goes missing. Inspired by the FBI CJIS Division’s Citizens Academy, the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program created the Harrison County Citizens Academy to connect with, and better educate, community leaders about aspects of law enforcement and the judicial system. As with the FBI’s citizen academies, these opportunities enable frank discussion to enhance communities.
Multiple members of the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program attended the award ceremony.
“I want to extend our sincere gratitude to the FBI for this tremendous honor,” said former Harrison County Sheriff Robert Matheny. “Thank you for your unwavering commitment to strengthening the bond between federal and local law enforcement and thank you recognizing the power of partnership in building safer communities. This award is a testament to what can be accomplished when ordinary citizens step forward to do extraordinary things. The men and women of our Reserve Unit have answered that call time and again, without hesitation and without expectation. We are honored to accept this award, not just as a unit, but as part of the greater law enforcement family—united by purpose, service, and the unwavering belief that communities are worth protecting.”
“This award was totally unexpected, but I am proud of how our unit has come together to give back to the community and to assist the sheriff’s office and deputies as they fulfill their duties,” said Deputy Sheriff Reserve Michael Lambiotte.
Photo Courtesy: Federal Bureau of Investigation – CJIS Division Assistant Director Timothy A. Ferguson (far left) and CJIS Division Section Chief Scott E. Schubert (far right) are joined by Harrison County Sheriff Robert Matheny II (center left) and members of the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program.
CLARKSBURG, WV—On Tuesday, June 17, 2025, FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division Assistant Director Timothy A. Ferguson presented the Harrison County (West Virginia) Deputy Reserve Program with the FBI Director’s Community Leadership Award (DCLA) for its service to citizens in West Virginia. The Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program is dedicated to strengthening relationships between law enforcement and the community.
The FBI established the DCLA in 1990 to publicly acknowledge the achievements of those working to make a difference in their communities through the promotion of education and the prevention of crime and violence.
“The FBI’s successes are built on our connections with our law enforcement partners and our communities,” said CJIS Division Assistant Director Ferguson. “Having partner organizations such as the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program that engage with the public ensures we are able to maintain public trust and accountability, crush violent crime, and defend the homeland.”
The Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program is a non-profit organization comprised of volunteers who support law enforcement and the community in a myriad of ways. The organization’s members are trained to assist in missing persons’ searches and traffic incident management. They hold monthly meetings that provide opportunities to connect state, local, and federal law enforcement. They also provide platforms for the FBI’s CJIS Division to reach community members via the CJIS Community Outreach Program’s Child ID Fingerprinting—a service that gives parents and guardians copies of their children’s fingerprints. The family can then turn over the fingerprints and accompanying headshots, which are not stored in any FBI system, to police in the event a child goes missing. Inspired by the FBI CJIS Division’s Citizens Academy, the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program created the Harrison County Citizens Academy to connect with, and better educate, community leaders about aspects of law enforcement and the judicial system. As with the FBI’s citizen academies, these opportunities enable frank discussion to enhance communities.
Multiple members of the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program attended the award ceremony.
“I want to extend our sincere gratitude to the FBI for this tremendous honor,” said former Harrison County Sheriff Robert Matheny. “Thank you for your unwavering commitment to strengthening the bond between federal and local law enforcement and thank you recognizing the power of partnership in building safer communities. This award is a testament to what can be accomplished when ordinary citizens step forward to do extraordinary things. The men and women of our Reserve Unit have answered that call time and again, without hesitation and without expectation. We are honored to accept this award, not just as a unit, but as part of the greater law enforcement family—united by purpose, service, and the unwavering belief that communities are worth protecting.”
“This award was totally unexpected, but I am proud of how our unit has come together to give back to the community and to assist the sheriff’s office and deputies as they fulfill their duties,” said Deputy Sheriff Reserve Michael Lambiotte.
Photo Courtesy: Federal Bureau of Investigation – CJIS Division Assistant Director Timothy A. Ferguson (far left) and CJIS Division Section Chief Scott E. Schubert (far right) are joined by Harrison County Sheriff Robert Matheny II (center left) and members of the Harrison County Deputy Reserve Program.
PLEASANTON, Calif. and ZURICH, June 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Adant Technologies Inc., a global leader in smart antenna solutions for wireless connectivity, today announced a strategic partnership with QuantalRF, the pioneering developer of RF semiconductor and antenna solutions. Under the commercial agreement, Adant is integrating QuantalRF’s patented DockOn® compound planar loop (CPL) antenna technology into its Wi-Fi AP antenna solutions for enterprise, carrier-home and retail-home markets. The partnership is already in progress through design collaborations with leading Tier 1 carriers, with plans to expand into additional opportunities.
Adant’s smart antenna platform applies advanced spatial optimization and beamforming algorithms to maximize signal strength, range and link reliability in Wi-Fi AP deployments. The integration of QuantalRF’s CPL antenna technology — engineered for superior efficiency greater than 80%, isolation greater than 30dB, gain, and omnidirectionality pattern — further enhances RF performance by minimizing multipath interference and improving coverage uniformity. Together, the combined solution offers OEMs a highly integrated, production-ready antenna subsystem that accelerates time to market while exceeding the performance demands of next-generation Wi-Fi systems.
“Adant is deeply embedded across the Wi-Fi AP ecosystem—from Carriers to leading OEMs and ODMs,” said Dr. Ali Fard, CEO and CTO of QuantalRF. “As their antenna technology partner, we are collaborating to deliver compact, high-efficiency antenna solutions optimized for 2×2 and 4×4 MIMO configurations across Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7. Together, we are bringing a highly differentiated solution into a market estimated to use more than 1 billion antennas annually.”
“This partnership reflects our shared vision for the future of connectivity,” said Daniele Piazza, CEO of Adant Technologies. “By integrating QuantalRF’s antenna technology, we are strengthening our antenna solutions with the performance, integration and flexibility our customers require. This positions us to scale efficiently across enterprise, carrier and retail markets, where our two companies are already strategically aligned and engaged in initial design activity.”
Key Collaboration Benefits:
Enhanced system performance – Boosts signal reliability, range and throughput in Wi-Fi 7 deployments
Streamlined development – Integration-ready antenna solution reduces design complexity and shortens time to market
Greater design flexibility – Supports compact, high-efficiency implementations across enterprise, carrier and consumer-grade Wi-Fi APs
About Adant Technologies Inc. Adant Technologies Inc. is a global player in providing advanced solutions that revolutionize the connectivity and functionalities of communication devices. Adant designs and sells adaptive wireless systems using its unique Beamshaping™ smart antenna technology to provide the best possible connectivity and accurate positioning to WiFi, 5G, and BLE devices. Adant has embedded its technology worldwide in hundreds of thousands of wireless devices and has established key partnerships with the world’s leading original equipment manufacturers and chipset makers.
About QuantalRF AG QuantalRF is transforming the RF signal chain for wireless communications to deliver an unmatched user experience. Its ultra-compact, highly configurable front-end ICs and extremely efficient antennas substantially improve area, cost, power, and overall performance. Headquartered in Zürich, Switzerland, with R&D centers in the USA and Sweden, QuantalRF has an extensive portfolio of over 200 patents. For more information, visit www.quantalRF.com.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
People observe fire and smoke from an Israeli airstrike on an oil depot in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025. Stringer/Getty Images
The two countries have been particularly hostile to each other since Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, resulting in economic sanctions and the severing of formal diplomatic relations between the nations.
Some of the major events in U.S.-Iran relations highlight the differences between the nations’ views, but others arguably presented real opportunities for reconciliation.
In 1951, the Iranian Parliament chose a new prime minister, Mossadegh, who then led lawmakers to vote in favor of taking over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, expelling the company’s British owners and saying they wanted to turn oil profits into investments in the Iranian people. The U.S. feared disruption in the global oil supply and worried about Iran falling prey to Soviet influence. The British feared the loss of cheap Iranian oil.
President Dwight Eisenhower decided it was best for the U.S. and the U.K. to get rid of Mossadegh. Operation Ajax, a joint CIA-British operation, convinced the Shah of Iran, the country’s monarch, to dismiss Mossadegh and drive him from office by force. Mossadegh was replaced by a much more Western-friendly prime minister, handpicked by the CIA.
Demonstrators in Tehran demand the establishment of an Islamic republic. AP Photo/Saris
1979: Revolutionaries oust the shah, take hostages
After more than 25 years of relative stability in U.S.-Iran relations, the Iranian public had grown unhappy with the social and economic conditions that developed under the dictatorial rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Iranian students at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran show a blindfolded American hostage to the crowd in November 1979. AP Photo
In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter agreed to allow the shah to come to the U.S. to seek advanced medical treatment. Outraged Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, taking 52 Americans hostage. That convinced Carter to sever U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980.
Two weeks later, the U.S. military launched a mission to rescue the hostages, but it failed, with aircraft crashes killing eight U.S. servicemembers.
The shah died in Egypt in July 1980, but the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, after 444 days of captivity.
An Iranian cleric, left, and an Iranian soldier wear gas masks to protect themselves against Iraqi chemical-weapons attacks in May 1988. Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
The U.S. was concerned that the conflict would limit the flow of Middle Eastern oil and wanted to ensure the conflict didn’t affect its close ally, Saudi Arabia.
U.S. officials moderated their usual opposition to those illegal and inhumane weapons because the U.S. State Department did not “wish to play into Iran’s hands by fueling its propaganda against Iraq.” In 1988, the war ended in a stalemate. More than 500,000 military and 100,000 civilians died.
1981-1986: US secretly sells weapons to Iran
The U.S. imposed an arms embargo after Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That left the Iranian military, in the middle of its war with Iraq, desperate for weapons and aircraft and vehicle parts to keep fighting.
The last shipment, of anti-tank missiles, was in October 1986. In November 1986, a Lebanese magazine exposed the deal. That revelation sparked the Iran-Contra scandal in the U.S., with Reagan’s officials found to have collected money from Iran for the weapons and illegally sent those funds to anti-socialist rebels – the Contras – in Nicaragua.
At a mass funeral for 76 of the 290 people killed in the shootdown of Iran Air 655, mourners hold up a sign depicting the incident. AP Photo/CP/Mohammad Sayyad
Either during or just after that exchange of gunfire, the Vincennes crew mistook a passing civilian Airbus passenger jet for an Iranian F-14 fighter. They shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard.
The U.S. called it a “tragic and regrettable accident,” but Iran believed the plane’s downing was intentional. In 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay US$131.8 million in compensation to Iran.
1997-1998: The US seeks contact
In August 1997, a moderate reformer, Mohammad Khatami, won Iran’s presidential election.
U.S. President Bill Clinton sensed an opportunity. He sent a message to Tehran through the Swiss ambassador there, proposing direct government-to-government talks.
Shortly thereafter, in early January 1998, Khatami gave an interview to CNN in which he expressed “respect for the great American people,” denounced terrorism and recommended an “exchange of professors, writers, scholars, artists, journalists and tourists” between the United States and Iran.
However, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn’t agree, so not much came of the mutual overtures as Clinton’s time in office came to an end.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as constituting an “Axis of Evil” supporting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction, straining relations even further.
Inside these buildings at the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, technicians enrich uranium. AP Photo/Vahid Salemi
That was a violation of the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed, requiring countries to disclose their nuclear-related facilities to international inspectors.
One of those formerly secret locations, Natanz, housed centrifuges for enriching uranium, which could be used in civilian nuclear reactors or enriched further for weapons.
Starting in roughly 2005, U.S. and Israeli government cyberattackers together reportedly targeted the Natanz centrifuges with a custom-made piece of malicious software that became known as Stuxnet.
An excerpt of the document sent from Iran, via the Swiss government, to the U.S. State Department in 2003, appears to seek talks between the U.S. and Iran. Washington Post via Scribd
In May 2003, senior Iranian officials quietly contacted the State Department through the Swiss embassy in Iran, seeking “a dialogue ‘in mutual respect,’” addressing four big issues: nuclear weapons, terrorism, Palestinian resistance and stability in Iraq.
Hardliners in the Bush administration weren’t interested in any major reconciliation, though Secretary of State Colin Powell favored dialogue and other officials had met with Iran about al-Qaida.
When Iranian hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005, the opportunity died. The following year, Ahmadinejad made his own overture to Washington in an 18-page letter to President Bush. The letter was widely dismissed; a senior State Department official told me in profane terms that it amounted to nothing.
After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration undertook a direct diplomatic approach beginning in 2013.
Iran, the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom signed the deal in 2015. It severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated that international inspectors monitor and enforce Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
In return, Iran was granted relief from international and U.S. economic sanctions. Though the inspectors regularly certified that Iran was abiding by the agreement’s terms, President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.
2020: US drones kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani
At the time, the Trump administration asserted that Soleimani was directing an imminent attack against U.S. assets in the region, but officials have not provided clear evidence to support that claim.
Hamas’ brazen attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, provoked a fearsome militarized response from Israel that continues today and served to severely weaken Iran’s proxies in the region, especially Hamas – the perpetrator of the attacks – and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
2025: Trump 2.0 and Iran
Trump saw an opportunity to forge a new nuclear deal with Iran and to pursue other business deals with Tehran. Once inaugurated for his second term, Trump appointed Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor who is the president’s friend, to serve as special envoy for the Middle East and to lead negotiations.
Negotiations for a nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran began in April, but the countries did not reach a deal. They were planning a new round of talks when Israel struck Iran with a series of airstrikes on June 13, forcing the White House to reconsider is position.
Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
WATCH: Padilla Delivers Floor Speech Following His Forcible Removal From DHS Press Conference
WATCH: Padilla: “If this Administration is this afraid of just one Senator with a question, colleagues, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting can do.”
“If that is what the Administration is willing to do to a United States Senator for having the [audacity] to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up. If what you saw happen can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — in so many places where there are no cameras.”
Video of Senator Padilla’s full speech can be viewed here and downloaded here.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, spoke on the Senate floor following his forcible removal from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s press conference, where he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed after attempting to ask a question. Padilla delivered a strong rebuke to the Trump Administration’s unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles and called for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the American people, to speak up against Trump’s abuse of power.
Last week, Trump deployed approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest caused by his indiscriminate immigration raids across the region. Padilla flew to Los Angeles to conduct oversight over the Trump Administration’s unprecedented military deployment to California — without Governor Newsom’s consent — and was in the high-security Los Angeles Federal Building for a scheduled oversight meeting with the commanding general in charge of the military presence in the region before law enforcement escorted him into Secretary Noem’s briefing room.
“The Trump Administration has done everything in their power but to provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles. And so last week, I chose to go home to try to get answers from the Administration as they are literally militarizing our city.”
“I want to share what I learned. I want to share what I heard because it should shock the conscience of our country.”
In the hopes of learning new information after having his requests ignored for months, Padilla tried to ask a question in response to Noem’s demonizing rhetoric toward immigrants and Los Angeles’ democratically elected leadership.
“At one point, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security said that the purpose of federal law enforcement and the purpose of the United States military was to ‘liberate’ Los Angeles from our governor and our mayor. To somehow liberate us from the very people that we democratically elected to lead our city and our state.”
“Colleagues, let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in. That is not a mission focused on public safety. And that simply is not, and cannot be, the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military.”
“To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are we truly prepared to live in a country where the President can deploy the Armed Forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents? Is that really the precedent that we’re okay with setting?”
“Throughout the country’s history, we’ve had conflict, we’ve had tumult, but we’ve never had a tyrant as a commander-in-chief.”
Padilla detailed his own background as the proud son of immigrants from Mexico who left behind his MIT engineering degree to protest against the vile anti-immigrant rhetoric in the 1990s that a Republican governor up for reelection spread across California. He said he felt he had to speak out against the Trump Administration’s “un-American” scapegoating of immigrants and California, and detailed the violent reaction to his question.
“So last week, when I heard something so blatantly un-American from the Secretary of Homeland Security, a cabinet official — of course I was compelled, both as a Senator and as an American, to speak up.”
“But before I could even get out my question, I was physically and aggressively forced out of the room — even as I repeatedly announced I was a United States Senator, and I had a question for the Secretary. And even as the National Guardsman and the FBI agent who served as my escorts and brought me into that press briefing room stood by, silently, knowing full well who I was.”
“You’ve seen the video. I was pushed and pulled, struggled to maintain my balance. I was forced to the ground — first on my knees and then flat on my chest. And as I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, repeatedly asking why am I being detained, not once did they tell me why.”
Padilla expressed his gratitude for the immense support for him and his family that poured in since his forcible removal. However, he emphasized that this fight was not about him but about the fundamental democratic rights of all Americans across the country.
“If you watched what unfolded last week and thought what happened is just about one politician and one press conference, you’re missing the point.”
“If that is what the Administration is willing to do to a United States Senator for having the [audacity] to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up. If what you saw happen can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — in so many places where there are no cameras.”
“Colleagues, this isn’t about me. In fact, it’s not just about immigrant communities or even just the State of California. It’s about every single American who values their Constitutional rights. It’s about anyone who’s ever exercised their First Amendment rights, or anyone who’s ever disagreed with a president, or anyone who simply values our democracy and wants to keep it.”
Padilla set the record straight on Republican misinformation on undocumented immigrants as Trump has used the same playbook when the headlines turn against him: scapegoat immigrants and manufacture a crisis. Public reporting shows that the majority of immigrants currently in ICE custody have no prior criminal conviction, and under 10 percent of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October have serious criminal convictions. Yet, President Trump has blamed immigrants to distract from his failed policies, including Republicans’ billionaire-first budget reconciliation bill that would cut critical services like health care and nutrition for millions of working families across the country.
As President Trump takes unprecedented action to militarize Los Angeles without justification or the Governor’s request, Padilla warned of the stakes for cities across the United States and American democracy.
“Donald Trump is continuing to test the boundaries of his power. And he’s surrounded himself with yes-men and underqualified attack dogs — from the DHS Secretary to the FBI Director to the Secretary of Defense — who will rubberstamp every anti-democratic step he takes.”
“This Administration’s officials and maybe not all, but many Republicans in Congress may choose not to do their job, but they cannot stop me from doing mine.”
“Again, if you really think this is just about immigrants and immigration, it’s time to wake up. What’s happening is not just a threat to California; it’s a threat to everyone in every state. If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor and activate the National Guard to put down protests on immigrant rights, he can do it to suppress your rights, too. If he can deploy the Marines to Los Angeles without justification, he can deploy them to your state, too. And if he can ignore due process, strip away First Amendment rights, and disappear people to foreign prisons without their day in court, he can do it to you too.”
“California is just the test case for the rest of the country. Last week for many was a warning shot. But I pray that it also serves as a wakeup call.”
Padilla concluded his speech with a call to action for Angelenos and millions of Americans to stand up and keep peacefully protesting against the Trump Administration’s attack on fundamental rights.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, or a Democrat, or an Independent — we all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back, before it’s too late. So I do encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There’s nothing more patriotic than to peacefully protest for your rights.”
“Because no one will liberate Los Angeles but Angelenos. No one will redeem America but Americans. No one is coming to save us but us.”
“And we know that the cameras are not on in every corner of the country. But if this Administration is this afraid of just one Senator with a question, colleagues, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting can do.”
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in calling out the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles and Trump’s misguided deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. This weekend, Padilla led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty servicemembers to American cities. Last week, Padilla and Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla has spoken at a spotlight hearing and on the Senate floor multiple times to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. He also joined all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats today in calling on Chairman Grassley to schedule Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem for a broad oversight hearing for testimony before the committee.
Padilla’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are available below:
[Mr./Madam] President,
Over the last two weeks in Los Angeles – my hometown – we’ve seen masked federal agents in tactical gear ordered into our communities . . .
We’ve seen a disturbing pattern of extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations, targeting non-violent people at places of worship, schools, and courthouses.
All to meet an arbitrary quota.
Now, we’re seeing President Trump federalize and deploy the National Guard without the Governor’s consent . . .
Active-duty Marines have been deployed, escalating tensions in our city . . .
All without coordination with the state and local law enforcement.
Despite repeated requests for justification for these extreme actions…and after months of little to no response from the Administration on their aggressive and theatrical immigration raids…
The Trump administration has done everything in their power BUT provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles.
So last week, I went home to try to get answers from the administration as they militarize our city.
What I heard should shock the conscience of our country.
One of the first items on my schedule last Thursday was a meeting with General Guillot, the four-star general in charge of U.S. Northern Command at the Federal Building in west Los Angeles, where they are overseeing these military operations.
When the United States military is deployed domestically…
When our own troops are deployed against the wishes of the Governor for the first time since 1965, against the wishes of the mayor, against even the wishes of local law enforcement — then we’re in uncharted territory.
So in an effort to do my duty to conduct congressional oversight — and to try to get answers from the Department of Defense that state and local officials were not receiving— I went to the federal building in West LA.
I was met at the entrance by a National Guardsman and an FBI agent, who escorted me through the security screening and up to a conference room for my scheduled briefing.
While waiting for my scheduled briefing with General Guillot, I learned that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was holding a press conference just down the hall and that the press conference was causing my briefing to be delayed.
The thought occurred to me that maybe I could attend and listen in, in the hopes of hearing Secretary Noem provide some new information that could help us make sense of what was happening.
I asked and was escorted by my National Guard and FBI escorts into the press conference. They opened the door for me. They accompanied me into the press briefing room.
It was there that I listened as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security said that the purpose of federal law enforcement and the United States military was to “liberate” Los Angeles from our governor and our mayor . . .
. . . To somehow liberate us from the very people we democratically elected to lead our city and our state.
Colleagues, let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in.
That’s not a mission focused on public safety.
That simply is not, and cannot be, the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are you truly prepared to live in a country where the President can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents?
Is that really the precedent you’re okay with setting?
As Secretary Noem herself said last year when serving as Governor of South Dakota, “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”
Throughout the country’s history, we’ve had conflict, and we’ve had tumult. But we have never had a tyrant as a commander-in-chief.
That’s not by coincidence!
It’s because the American people have always been willing to speak up and exercise their First Amendment right to protest – especially when our fundamental rights have been threatened.
As the proud son of immigrants from Mexico, it’s that same right I came to revere when marching through the streets of Los Angeles in 1994 alongside friends and family protesting against the vile anti-immigrant rhetoric that was growing in California.
It was that year that a Republican Governor up for reelection and down in the polls, turned to scapegoating immigrants to try to improve his political standing.
That fight is what got me to leave an engineering career behind and dedicate myself to influencing government and politics. So, I’ve seen this before. Californians have seen this before.
So last week, when I heard something so blatantly un-American from the Secretary of Homeland Security — I was compelled, both as a Senator AND as an American, to speak up.
But before I could even get out my question, I was physically and aggressively forced out of the room — even as I announced I was a United States Senator, and I had a question for the Secretary.
And even as the National Guardsman and FBI agent who escorted me into the press conference stood by, silently, knowing full well who I was.
You’ve seen the video.
I was pushed and pulled, struggling to maintain my balance.
I was forced to the ground — first to my knees and then flat on my chest.
As I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, I repeatedly asked why I was being detained. Not once did they tell me why.
In that moment, a lot of questions run through your head.
Where are they taking me?
Am I being arrested?
What will a city already on edge from being militarized think when they see their Senator has been handcuffed just for trying to ask a question? Or . . .
What will my wife and our three boys think?
I also remember asking myself: if this aggressive escalation is the result of speaking up against the abuses and overreach of the Trump administration, was it really worth it?
But colleagues, how many Americans in our nation’s history have marched, have protested, have shed blood and lost their lives to protect our rights?
How many Americans have served in wars overseas to protect our freedoms here at home?
And how many Americans in the year 2025 see a vindictive president on a tour of retribution, unrestrained by the majority of this separate but co-equal branch of government in this building, and wonder if it’s worth it to stand up or to speak out?
If a United States Senator is too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same?
Colleagues, you know me.
I’m not aware of anyone who would describe me as a flamethrower. I try to be respectful and considerate to every member of this body— regardless of your politics.
So I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who reached out to share messages of support — whether it was public or in private.
In means a great deal to me and my family.
But if you watched what unfolded last week and thought this was about one politician or one press conference, you’re missing the point.
If that’s what this Administration will do to a United States Senator for having the audacity to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up.
If that’s what can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — when the cameras are off.
This isn’t about me. In fact, it’s not even just about immigrant communities or about Californians.
It’s about every single American who values their constitutional rights. It’s about anyone who’s ever exercised their First Amendment rights, or ever disagreed with a president, or who simply values living in a democracy and wants to keep it.
The President will tell you this is about undocumented immigrants, and about law and order and about targeting dangerous, violent criminals.
But we know differently.
Public data released by the administration shows that the majority of immigrants currently in ICE custody do not have a prior criminal conviction.
And new reporting shows that less than 10 percent of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October have serious criminal convictions.
Less than 10 percent!
Two weeks ago, Donald Trump was at the lowest point in his presidency so far.
He was drowning in a week of terrible headlines.
The American people were finally waking up to the realities of the budget reconciliation bill that will cut health care, nutrition assistance, and good paying clean energy jobs in order to cut taxes for billionaires.
He was losing his tariff wars as the costs of everyday goods were continuing to rise.
His promises to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine were falling flat.
He’d been handed loss after loss in federal court.
And maybe the most embarrassing part was his public breakup with Elon Musk.
But we know what happens when the headlines turn on Donald Trump. Donald Trump turns to the same tired playbook he always has: when in doubt, scapegoat immigrants. And manufacture a crisis to distract the media from your failures.
That’s the reason he ramped up ICE raids in California.
And when Californians took to the streets to peacefully protest, that’s the reason he bypassed the Governor and federalized the National Guard. And as things began to settle in Los Angeles, he escalated even further by sending in the Marines.
He wants the spectacle — not just to distract, but to justify his undemocratic crackdowns and his authoritarian power grabs.
That’s the reason why even while the vast majority of protests have remained peaceful, the President, the Vice President, and their allies have called protestors insurrectionists!
Yes, this is the same man who provoked an actual insurrection on our Capitol on January 6th.
The same man who incited a violent mob, carrying confederate flags, against Congress.
The same man who then pardoned the convicted felons who assaulted our brave Capitol Police officers.
Trump is testing the boundaries of his power. And he’s surrounded himself with yes-men and underqualified attack dogs — from the DHS Secretary to the FBI Director to the Secretary of Defense — who will rubberstamp every anti-democratic step he takes.
This Administration’s officials and Congressional Republicans may choose not to do their job, but they cannot stop me from doing mine.
And I refuse to let immigrants be pawns on the path to fascism.
Again, if you really think this is just about immigrants, it’s time to wake up.
What’s happening isn’t just a threat to California, it’s a threat to everyone in every state.
If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor and activate the National Guard to put down protests for immigrant rights, he can do it to suppress your rights, too.
If he can deploy Marines to Los Angeles without justification, he can deploy them to your city, too.
If he can ignore due process, strip away First Amendment rights, and disappear people to foreign prisons without their day in court, he can do it to you too.
California is just Trump’s test case for the rest of the country.
Last week was a warning shot.
But I pray that it can be our wakeup call, too.
We’ve now seen Trump threaten to do the same in other cities run by elected Democrats.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent — we all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back, before it’s too late.
So I encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There’s nothing more patriotic than peacefully protesting for your rights.
No one will liberate Los Angeles but Angelenos.
No one will redeem America but Americans.
No one is coming to save us but us.
The cameras won’t always be on.
But if this Administration is this scared of just one Senator with a question, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans in the streets can do.
Thank you, [Mr./Madam] President, I yield the floor.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24), alongside Congressman Brad Sherman (CA-32), introduced a resolution reaffirming the United States’ steadfast support for Israel as it works to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and defends its citizens from ongoing Iranian attacks.
Additional cosponsors of this resolution include Representatives Don Bacon (NE-2), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-5), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-10), Mike Lawler (NY-17), Juan Ciscomani (AZ-6), Chris Smith (NJ-4), Scott Fitzgerald (WI-5), Randy Feenstra (IA-4), Tom Barrett (MI-7), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1), Maria Salazar (FL-27), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Robert Aderholt (AL-4), and Elise Stefanik (NY-21). The resolution was also supported by FDD Action, JINSA, AJC, AIPAC, and Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI).
For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has actively pursued a nuclear weapons program in direct violation of international agreements while funding terrorism, threatening the existence of Israel, and fueling instability throughout the Middle East. Despite bipartisan diplomatic efforts across multiple U.S. administrations, Iran has consistently obstructed inspections, expelled international monitors, and advanced its uranium enrichment to levels dangerously close to weapons-grade. On Friday, June 13th, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This resolution underscores the United States’ full support for Israel’s recent targeted actions to degrade the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which protects not only Israel but also the United States and the free world. It reaffirms the vital importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance and makes clear that the pursuit of a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated.
“This bipartisan resolution reaffirms the United States’ unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense and for its bold, courageous efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program once and for all. The U.S.-Israel partnership remains unshakable, and this resolution sends a clear and unified message: we will work together to ensure the Iranian regime is never able to obtain a nuclear weapon,” said Congresswoman Tenney.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has made clear time and time again its intent to ‘annihilate’ Israel and attack the United States and has funded direct military attacks on Israel and the United States for decades. It’s regrettable that Iran’s decades of violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it signed has led us to a point where this is necessary. The only thing more dangerous than this war is an Ayatollah with access to nuclear weapons. Israel could not wait until Iran had a stockpile of nuclear weapons ready to be launched,” said Congressman Sherman.
A six-count indictment was unsealed today in the Northern District of Georgia charging former Fulton County Jail Sergeant, Khadijah Solomon, 47, with using excessive force by repeatedly deploying tasers against compliant, non-resisting pretrial detainees on three separate occasions in January 2025 and writing false reports about each of the incidents.
“The Civil Rights Division has zero tolerance for law enforcement officers who abuse public trust through excessive force and concealing their misconduct,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously safeguard the constitutional rights of all individuals, including those in custody, and ensure accountability in this case.”
“Law enforcement officers in this district perform their duties professionally and honorably, but those who abuse their power will be held accountable for their unlawful conduct,” said U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia. “On three occasions, Khadijah Solomon allegedly tased Fulton County Jail detainees without a legitimate purpose, causing each of them pain and injury. Abuses of power of this kind are unconstitutional, erode our community’s trust, and will be prosecuted.”
Solomon faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each federal civil rights violation, and 20 years in prison for each false report. If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia and Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown of the FBI Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Atlanta Field Office is investigating the case based on a referral from the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bret Hobson and Brent Gray for the Northern District of Georgia and Trial Attorney Briana M. Clark of the Civil Rights Division are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
A six-count indictment was unsealed today in the Northern District of Georgia charging former Fulton County Jail Sergeant, Khadijah Solomon, 47, with using excessive force by repeatedly deploying tasers against compliant, non-resisting pretrial detainees on three separate occasions in January 2025 and writing false reports about each of the incidents.
“The Civil Rights Division has zero tolerance for law enforcement officers who abuse public trust through excessive force and concealing their misconduct,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously safeguard the constitutional rights of all individuals, including those in custody, and ensure accountability in this case.”
“Law enforcement officers in this district perform their duties professionally and honorably, but those who abuse their power will be held accountable for their unlawful conduct,” said U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia. “On three occasions, Khadijah Solomon allegedly tased Fulton County Jail detainees without a legitimate purpose, causing each of them pain and injury. Abuses of power of this kind are unconstitutional, erode our community’s trust, and will be prosecuted.”
Solomon faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each federal civil rights violation, and 20 years in prison for each false report. If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia and Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown of the FBI Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Atlanta Field Office is investigating the case based on a referral from the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bret Hobson and Brent Gray for the Northern District of Georgia and Trial Attorney Briana M. Clark of the Civil Rights Division are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Following the vote in plenary, Parliament’s rapporteur Ana Catarina Mendes (S&D, Portugal), will answer questions on ongoing and new concerns about the state of European values.
Where: European Parliament in Strasburg, Daphne Caruana Galizia press conference room (WEISS N-1/201) and online, with interpretation to and from English, French, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, and Polish.
How: Accredited journalists can join the press conference in person. Those wishing to actively participate and ask questions remotely can do so via Interactio. The press conference will be streamed live and become available on demand on Parliament’s Multimedia Centre.
Using Interactio to ask questions
Interactio is only supported on iPad (with the Safari browser) and Mac/Windows (with the Google Chrome browser).
When connecting, enter your name and the media you are representing in the first name / last name fields.
For better sound quality, use headphones and a microphone. Interpretation is only possible for interventions with video.
Journalists who have never used Interactio before are asked to connect 30 minutes before the start of the press conference to perform a connection test. IT assistance can be provided if necessary.
When connected, open the chat window (upper right corner) to be able to see the service messages.
A six-count indictment was unsealed today in the Northern District of Georgia charging former Fulton County Jail Sergeant, Khadijah Solomon, 47, with using excessive force by repeatedly deploying tasers against compliant, non-resisting pretrial detainees on three separate occasions in January 2025 and writing false reports about each of the incidents.
“The Civil Rights Division has zero tolerance for law enforcement officers who abuse public trust through excessive force and concealing their misconduct,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously safeguard the constitutional rights of all individuals, including those in custody, and ensure accountability in this case.”
“Law enforcement officers in this district perform their duties professionally and honorably, but those who abuse their power will be held accountable for their unlawful conduct,” said U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia. “On three occasions, Khadijah Solomon allegedly tased Fulton County Jail detainees without a legitimate purpose, causing each of them pain and injury. Abuses of power of this kind are unconstitutional, erode our community’s trust, and will be prosecuted.”
Solomon faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each federal civil rights violation, and 20 years in prison for each false report. If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg for the Northern District of Georgia and Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown of the FBI Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Atlanta Field Office is investigating the case based on a referral from the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bret Hobson and Brent Gray for the Northern District of Georgia and Trial Attorney Briana M. Clark of the Civil Rights Division are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on 22 May 2025.
2. Opening of the sitting
(The sitting opened at 17:00)
3. Statement by the President
President. – Dear colleagues, welcome back to Strasbourg for our plenary session. I’ll start with a sad communication on what happened in Austria.
Last week, we learned of the horrific school shooting in Graz, where a former pupil killed 10 students and staff, and severely injured many others. This was a senseless act of violence that has deeply shaken Austria and all of Europe. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and the entire school community. We stand with everyone in Austria at this terrible time.
That same day, we learned of another brutal attack, as a 31-year-old teaching assistant was stabbed to death outside a school in Nogent in France. La victime et ses proches sont dans nos pensées.
Violence and hatred, dear colleagues, have no place in Europe and no place in our schools. Schools must remain safe spaces of learning and growth – never of fear. So I ask you to please join me in observing a minute’s silence in honour of the victims and all those affected.
(The House rose and observed a minute’s silence)
4. Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings
President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sitting of 21 and 22 May 20205 are available.
Are there any comments? No?
The minutes are therefore approved.
5. Composition of Parliament
President. – Following the resignation of Ondřej Kovařík, and on the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Parliament takes note of the vacancy of his seat from 31 July 2025, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, and will inform the national authority concerned thereof.
6. Requests for waivers of immunity
President. – I have received a request from the competent authorities in Poland for the parliamentary immunity of Grzegorz Braun to be waived.
This request is referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
7. Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity – closure of procedure
President. – I have received a letter from the competent authorities in Belgium withdrawing the request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of our colleague Giusi Princi. The procedure is therefore closed.
8. Requests for the defence of the immunity of a former Member – termination of procedure
President. – The Committee on Legal Affairs has informed me that the request for defence of the parliamentary immunity of Helmut Geuking is inadmissible, so the procedure is therefore closed.
9. Composition of political groups
President. – Fernand Kartheiser is no longer a member of the ECR Group and sits with the non attached Members as of 4 June 2025.
10. Composition of committees and delegations
President. – The ECR Group has notified me of a decision relating to changes to appointments within delegations.
This decision will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.
11. Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
President. – The AFCO Committee has proposed interpretations of the first subparagraph of Article 3(5) and Article 8 of Annex I to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The texts are available on the plenary webpage and will be published in the minutes of the sitting.
Pursuant to Rule 242(4), Members or a political group reaching at least the low threshold may contest the committee’s interpretations within a period of 24 hours following this announcement. If the interpretations are not contested, they shall be deemed approved.
12. Negotiations ahead of Parliament’s first reading (Rule 72)
President. – The LIBE Committee has decided to enter interinstitutional negotiations, pursuant to Rule 72(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The report which constitutes the mandate for the negotiations is available on the plenary webpage and the title will be published in the minutes of the sitting.
Pursuant to Rule 72(2), Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by midnight tomorrow, Tuesday, 17 June, that the decision be put to the vote. If no request for a vote in Parliament is made within the deadline, the committee may start the negotiations.
13. Negotiations ahead of Council’s first reading (Rule 73)
President. – The SANT Committee has decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations ahead of Council’s first reading, pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure.
The position adopted by Parliament at first reading, which constitutes the mandate for those negotiations, is available on the plenary webpage and its title will be published in the minutes of the sitting.
14. Delegated acts (Rule 114(6))
President. – I was informed that no objections have been raised within the Conference of Committee Chairs to the recommendation by the AGRI Committee not to oppose a delegated act, pursuant to Rule 114(6) of our Rules. The recommendation is available on the plenary webpage.
If no objections are raised by a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold within 24 hours, the recommendation shall be deemed to have been approved.
15. Corrigenda (Rule 251)
President. – The ECON Committee has transmitted a corrigendum to a text adopted by Parliament. Pursuant to Rule 251(1), this corrigendum will be deemed approved unless, no later than 24 hours after its announcement, a request is made by a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold that it be put to the vote.
The corrigendum is available on the plenary webpage. Its title will be published in the minutes of this sitting.
16. Signature of acts adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 81)
President. – I would like to inform you that, since the adjournment of Parliament’s session on 22 May 2025, I have signed, together with the President of the Council, one act adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, in accordance with Rule 81 of Parliament’s Rules.
I would also like to inform you that tomorrow I shall sign, together with the President of the Council, five acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure.
The titles of the acts will be published in the minutes of this sitting.
⁂
Now we move to the points of order. I have received 11, so we will go through them in the order that I received them.
As always, I ask you, please, dear colleagues, we know there’s a little bit of flexibility on Mondays – and it’s also been a few weeks since we met in Strasbourg – but it’s becoming longer and longer. So, please, I ask you for responsibility.
Γιάννης Μανιάτης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, πριν από λίγες εβδομάδες, με απόφαση αιγυπτιακού δικαστηρίου, από την Ιερά Μονή της Αγίας Αικατερίνης του Σινά —που είναι το αρχαιότερο συνεχώς κατοικούμενο μοναστήρι στον κόσμο— αφαιρέθηκε η ιδιοκτησία του ίδιου του μοναστηριού, καθώς και των παρακείμενων γαιών. Έτσι, η λειτουργία της Μονής εξαρτάται αποκλειστικά από την καλή θέληση του αιγυπτιακού κράτους, το οποίο είναι πλέον ο ιδιοκτήτης. Οι μοναχοί είναι απλοί φιλοξενούμενοι, αφού σχεδόν όλοι τους βρίσκονται εκεί με άδειες παραμονής ενός έτους. Η απόφαση αυτή θέτει σε κίνδυνο τη βιωσιμότητα και τη λειτουργία αυτού του μοναδικού μοναστηριού, που έχει ιστορία 15 αιώνων.
Ως σοσιαλιστική ομάδα, καταθέσαμε αίτημα για να συζητηθεί στην Ολομέλεια του Κοινοβουλίου, αλλά αυτό δεν ήταν δυνατό για αυτήν την εβδομάδα. Θα επιμείνουμε, όμως, και στην Ολομέλεια του Ιουλίου, καθώς είναι ένα εξαιρετικά σημαντικό ζήτημα, ιδιαίτερα μάλιστα στο πλαίσιο της μακροοικονομικής βοήθειας προς την Αίγυπτο.
Michele Picaro (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 13 giugno scorso a Francavilla Fontana il brigadiere Carlo Legrottaglie è stato ucciso mentre inseguiva i responsabili di una rapina. Un colpo d’arma da fuoco lo ha strappato alla vita. Aveva 59 anni. Mancavano pochi giorni alla pensione, dopo oltre trent’anni di onorato servizio nell’arma dei carabinieri. Eppure, fino all’ultimo istante, Carlo ha fatto ciò che aveva sempre amato fare: servire lo Stato, proteggere i cittadini, onorare la divisa con disciplina, umanità e incrollabile senso del dovere.
Ma oggi il nostro pensiero va alla sua famiglia. A loro giunga da quest’Aula il nostro abbraccio più sincero e commosso. È tempo che l’Unione europea riconosca questi sacrifici.
Per questo chiedo l’istituzione di una Giornata della memoria per gli appartenenti alle forze dell’ordine caduti in servizio, affinché ogni Carlo, in ogni paese d’Europa, trovi posto nella coscienza collettiva delle nostre democrazie. Onore a Carlo Legrottaglie per sempre.
Rima Hassan (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, le 1ᵉʳ juin, j’ai été kidnappée dans les eaux internationales par l’armée israélienne alors que je me trouvais à bord d’un navire humanitaire en route vers Gaza. Nous étions douze à bord du navire, dont dix citoyens européens. Nous avons tous été enlevés, déportés de force par Israël, puis détenus illégalement pendant plusieurs jours dans le silence assourdissant de ce Parlement. Aucune condamnation, aucun appel à libération sans condition. J’ai été menottée, fouillée à nu, menottée aux mains et aux pieds, mise à l’isolement pour avoir inscrit «Free Palestine» dans ma cellule.
Je veux rappeler, au-delà de nos clivages politiques, chers collègues, que l’action de la flottille est parfaitement légale. Elle a été soutenue par dix rapporteurs spéciaux des Nations unies, des millions de citoyens européens, des centaines de parlementaires et des ONG internationales.
Non seulement Gaza a le droit de recevoir de l’aide humanitaire, mais les États et les responsables politiques ont le devoir moral et légal de faire cesser la famine et le génocide qui y sévit. Ce silence, Madame la Présidente, est une faute politique grave. Il alimente l’impunité d’Israël et compromet la crédibilité de cette institution. Tant que ce Parlement se taira, l’Europe ne sera plus une voix pour les droits humains, mais l’écho de sa propre complicité et de sa propre lâcheté politique.
Jordan Bardella (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Mme Hassan vient de démontrer une fois de plus qu’elle n’était, dans cet hémicycle, pas une députée française au Parlement européen, mais bien l’ambassadrice du Hamas auprès de l’Union européenne. Je souhaiterais donc faire un rappel au règlement intérieur, s’il vous plaît, sur la base de l’article 10, paragraphe 7.
À l’occasion des Rencontres des jeunes européens qui se sont tenues dans ces murs le week-end dernier, le Parlement a reçu une fois de plus, Madame la Présidente, l’association Femyso. Cette officine s’est illustrée à de nombreuses reprises par des prises de position communautaristes, par des campagnes de promotion du voile islamique, le tout avec le financement public et l’argent des contribuables européens. Il y a quelques semaines, un rapport du ministère de l’Intérieur français identifiait cette association comme un proxy des Frères musulmans en Europe, décrivant cette organisation comme – je cite – une «structure de formation des cadres à haut potentiel de la mouvance».
Nous ne cessons de vous alerter, Madame la Présidente, sur l’influence grandissante des Frères musulmans au sein même des institutions européennes. Ma question est donc simple: combien de temps allons-nous encore tolérer, financer, légitimer les ennemis de la civilisation européenne?
Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, colleagues, I refer to Rule 39.
Autocratic leaders and anti-democratic forces across our continent and worldwide are violently attacking minorities and vulnerable communities. There is no worse moment for the Commission to withdraw the Horizontal Anti-Discrimination Directive, key legislation to protect all Europeans – older people, people with disabilities, women, LGBTQIA+ people and the most vulnerable – from all forms of discrimination. Part of the EPP joined forces with the far-right to stop the European Parliament from contesting this withdrawal, going against the recommendation of the Conference of Committee Chairs and LIBE Committee.
Madam President, we urge you to preserve the integrity of our procedures, the reputation and fundamental rights agenda of Parliament. Prove to the Commission, civil society and EU citizens that the European Parliament remains committed to fight against all forms of discrimination.
Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, I would like to make a point of order under Rule 202.
The EU sanctioned Kremlin propaganda outlets like Russia Today and Sputnik, banning their broadcasts for spreading disinformation and justifying Russia’s aggression. And yet, today, these same sanctioned outlets remain freely accessible inside this Parliament on the internal network, Wi‑Fi and visitor devices.
After months of notification, letters and discussions to the President and Bureau, nothing has changed. This is not a technical issue. This is an institutional failure. When we demand sanctions enforcement across the EU but fail inside our own House, we move from double standards into complicity.
The legal basis is clear. The EU Court of Justice upheld the sanctions. National regulators have acted. The European Parliament must not be the last safe haven for sanctioned Kremlin propaganda. We call again for immediate action, a full blocking and compliance audit, binding internal guidelines and accountability.
Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, while the world’s attention is turned to conflicts shaking the foundation of our global order, another atrocity has unfolded almost unnoticed before our eyes.
In the early hours of Saturday, more than 200 people were brutally massacred in Yelwata, Nigeria, sheltered in a local Catholic mission, in a region already ravaged by religious violence. This is the single worst atrocity in recent times, part of an orchestrated militant campaign to forcibly uproot Christian communities from their ancestral land. Entire families were slaughtered. Militants attacked the displaced people, who had already fled violence, attempting to burn them alive. Over 6 500 people have been forced to flee again, many now without shelter or hope.
Freedom of religion is paid with blood across the world, and in Nigeria, Christians are the most persecuted group. Since 2009, over 52 000 Christians have been killed, 18 000 churches and 2 000 Christian schools destroyed. I think it is about time we do something for Christians who are being persecuted all around the world with the same effort that we have done for other persecuted religions.
Αφροδίτη Λατινοπούλου (PfE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αύριο συμπληρώνονται επτά χρόνια από τη ντροπιαστική και μειοδοτική Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών, που υπέγραψαν χέρι-χέρι Τσίπρας και Καμμένος. Ως περήφανη Μακεδόνισσα, δεν έχω νιώσει μεγαλύτερη ντροπή απ’ ό,τι με την αναγνώριση μακεδονικής γλώσσας και εθνότητας στους Σκοπιανούς —κάτι που ούτε καν η Βουλγαρία δεν δέχτηκε ποτέ.
Εμείς, επτά χρόνια τώρα, ανεκτικά και αδιαμαρτύρητα παρακολουθούμε τις συνεχείς προκλήσεις των Σκοπίων, που παραβιάζουν τη συμφωνία σε κάθε επίπεδο —πολιτικό, αθλητικό και ιστορικό. Ο Κυριάκος Μητσοτάκης είχε δεσμευτεί δημόσια πως, αν δεν τηρούνται τα συμφωνηθέντα, θα την καταργήσει. Έξι χρόνια τώρα, ούτε μία καταγγελία, ούτε μία λέξη. Σιωπή και από τον κύριο Δένδια. Και ο Άδωνις Γεωργιάδης, που κάποτε δήλωνε ότι δεν θα την αποκαλέσει ποτέ «Βόρεια Μακεδονία», σήμερα την αποκαλεί μόνον έτσι.
Δίνω τον λόγο μου, λοιπόν, στους υπερήφανους Μακεδόνες, πως όταν μας δοθεί η δύναμη, θα κάνουμε τα πάντα για να καταργηθεί αυτή η εθνικά ταπεινωτική συμφωνία. Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική.
Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, referring to Rule 10(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to bring to your attention to the fact that equal treatment of Members was not upheld during the last plenary session concerning the Israel‑Gaza debate.
My ECR colleague Kristoffer Storm had a very small pin removed from his jacket – a pin calling for the release of hostages kidnapped by Hamas who had been tortured and raped.
Meanwhile, when MEP Lynn Boylan from The Left Group approached the podium to deliver her speech wearing a Palestine lanyard, it was not removed. And this despite the fact that I had informed the President well in advance that the MEP in question would soon be speaking and was wearing that lanyard.
She was allowed to wear that political symbol throughout her entire speech and only after she had finished did the President simply remark that political symbols are not permitted while speaking.
How can it be that some MEPs are stripped of political expressions while others are not?
The plenary is the most sacred arena of democracy in the European Parliament. That is why I urge the President to ensure that Members are treated equally in the future and that such blatant double standards become a thing of the past.
President. – Thank you, Ms Scuderi. And as I told your colleague, Mr Bardella, this will be discussed in the Bureau tonight.
17. Order of business
President. – With the agreement of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposal for a change to the final draft agenda.
On Tuesday, the Council and Commission statements on ‘The assassination attempt on Senator Miguel Uribe and the threat to the democratic process and peace in Colombia’ will be changed to a statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
If there are no objections, the change is approved.
We now move to changes requested by the political groups.
For Tuesday, the EPP, S&D and Renew groups have requested that a joint debate on ‘The situation in the Middle East’, including a statement by the Vice-President / High Representative on ‘Risk of further instability in the Middle East following the Israel-Iran military escalation’ and a statement by the Vice-President / High Representative on ‘Review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza’, be added as the ninth point in the afternoon, after the debate on air passenger rights.
I give the floor first to Mr Gahler to move the joint request.
President. – Thank you Mr Botenga.
So does The Left Group ask that in any case the debate be wound up with a resolution? I see.
So first we will vote by roll call on the joint proposal by the EPP, S&D and Renew groups to add a joint debate on ‘Situation in the Middle East’ as a ninth point in the afternoon.
(Parliament approved the request)
Now we vote on the request by The Left Group to have a resolution.
(Parliament rejected the request)
Therefore, the agenda is adopted and the order of business is thus established. Thank you very much.
18. Statement by the President – 40th anniversary of the Schengen area agreement
President. – The next item is a statement and a group of speakers on the 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement.
This past Saturday, 14 June 2025, marked 40 years since the signing of the agreement that established the Schengen area – a defining achievement of European unity, of cooperation and freedom. What began in 1985 with just five countries has grown into the largest free travel area in the world, making life easier for over 400 million people across the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
This year, we warmly welcomed Bulgaria and Romania into our Schengen family, which is now made up of 29 countries. It was a long-awaited step towards a more united, prosperous and secure Union. And work continues to extend those same benefits to all Member States.
Today, the Schengen area allows 3.5 million people each day to cross internal borders freely – to live, love, work and explore Europe without barriers. It boosts our economy by making trade between countries easier, cutting red tape for businesses and helping our single market work better.
Schengen, as I’m sure we’ll hear throughout this debate, also makes us safer. It helps to keep us safe through closer cooperation between police, customs and border authorities to protect our borders and fight crime.
Around the world, the Schengen area is looked at with admiration, and it’s really a clear and tangible example of what European cooperation can achieve.
But we should never take it for granted, because the preservation and the strengthening of Schengen takes constant commitment and effort from all of us. So this Parliament will keep working with Member States and the other EU institutions to modernise and to reinforce the Schengen area so that it stays fit for the future and true to its promise: that we always achieve more together than alone.
Tomas Tobé,on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, the Schengen Area is one of the EU’s greatest achievements. For 40 years, it has meant freedom, prosperity and opportunity to millions of people in Europe. Schengen drives our economy and competitiveness and unites us as Europeans. Without it, we would be weaker and poorer. But let’s be clear: the freedom of Schengen can only survive if we protect it, and the growing threats to our internal security needs a strong European answer.
The EPP Group calls for a pact for security. We see three major security challenges. Firstly, migration and border security: we need to regain control over our external border. This means fully implementing the migration pact and ensuring effective returns of those who do not have the right to stay in Europe. Secondly, the rise of cross-border organised crime: Schengen is for citizens, not for criminals. We cannot allow the freedom of Schengen to be exploited. Europol must be transformed into a truly operational police agency, with more tools and resources. Thirdly, we need to be ready to counter hybrid attacks from hostile actors.
We have seen how migration is being used as a weapon to undermine our borders and to destabilise our union, and here we need to face those threats and we need to do it together. Security must be a top priority – because a safe Europe is also a free Europe, with a strong Schengen.
Birgit Sippel,im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! 40 Jahre Schengen-Abkommen – wie kam es dazu, und warum ist das heute noch wichtig? Nach Jahrhunderten voller Kriege hat sich nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg endlich eine andere Idee in Europa durchgesetzt: miteinander reden und ja, auch miteinander streiten, um gemeinsame Interessen und Lösungen zu finden; das ist gerade angesichts der aktuellen Krisen und Kriege von unschätzbarem Wert. Zugleich war diese Zusammenarbeit dann die Grundlage für die größte Errungenschaft unserer Union: die Vereinbarung von Schengen, die Abschaffung von Schlagbäumen und Kontrollen an unseren Binnengrenzen. Das hat nicht nur den schnellen Austausch von Waren und Dienstleistungen befeuert und Vorteile gebracht. Es vereinfacht grenzüberschreitende Begegnungen von Menschen für Arbeit, Austauschprogramme, Freizeit, lässt gemeinsame Interessen konkret erkennen. Das wollen wir auch für die Mitgliedstaaten erreichen, die daran arbeiten, dem Schengen-Raum beizutreten, denn diese Begegnungen und ihre Folgen sind eine wichtige Voraussetzung für ein starkes Europa, das sich und seine Werte global selbstbewusst vertritt.
Aber die zunehmenden Grenzkontrollen in Mitgliedstaaten legen die Axt an bisherige Erfolge. Sie bauen neue Barrieren auf und können letztlich unser gemeinsames Europa zerstören. Dabei werden durch diese Kontrollen keine Probleme gelöst, im Gegenteil: Sie sind Vortäuschung einer Lösung auf der Basis von Hass, Ausgrenzung, Abschottung, sie sind das Ende der guten Nachbarschaft in Europa und kosten uns viel Vertrauen.
Deshalb ist es angesichts dieses 40. Jahrestages ganz klar: Wir müssen die echten Herausforderungen angehen, die Gründungsidee Europa neu stärken, uns Hass und Ausgrenzung entgegenstellen und Grenzkontrollen endlich beenden. Das wäre der beste Beitrag zur Feier von 40 Jahren Schengen.
Fabrice Leggeri,au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l’Union européenne célèbre en ce moment les 40 ans de l’accord de Schengen, mais que fête-t-on exactement? L’échec programmé d’un système incapable de protéger les peuples. Ce système, à l’origine fondé sur une coopération internationale, reposait pourtant sur une idée simple: la libre circulation ne pouvait exister qu’à condition de protéger strictement les frontières extérieures. Cette promesse n’a jamais été tenue.
La Commission s’est arrogé les pouvoirs au détriment des États et n’a jamais assuré sa mission. Depuis 2022, plus d’un million de franchissements illégaux des frontières extérieures ont été détectés, sans compter les vagues précédentes. Pendant ce temps, le nombre de retours de migrants illégaux dans leur pays d’origine est ridicule. Aujourd’hui, seuls les passeurs et les ONG complices ont de quoi se réjouir. En face, et face à cette submersion migratoire nourrie par l’idéologie pro-migrants de Mme von der Leyen, les États n’ont d’autre choix que de rétablir leurs frontières nationales. La Commission ose écrire – je cite – que «Schengen est devenu un système résilient […], fondé sur une gestion efficace des frontières extérieures».
Bruxelles vit hors sol. Mon groupe, les Patriotes pour l’Europe, exige le retour au réel. Nous voulons que les frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne soient enfin protégées strictement pour que la libre circulation soit véritablement possible, que les demandeurs d’asile soient renvoyés dans des centres situés à l’extérieur du continent, que les migrants illégaux soient renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine, que les ONG complices des passeurs soient sanctionnées, que la coopération policière à travers l’agence Europol soit renforcée et, enfin, que le pacte asile et migration soit abandonné. Si Bruxelles refuse de faire le travail, les électeurs peuvent compter sur mon groupe pour le faire.
Nicola Procaccini,a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi celebriamo i quarant’anni di una grande vittoria europea. Schengen è la storia di un’Europa che ha rimosso le barriere interne per garantire a quasi mezzo miliardo di persone la libertà di viaggiare, vivere, lavorare e crescere oltre i propri confini nazionali. Ricordiamo le vicende, i volti dei primi pendolari transfrontalieri, delle famiglie non più divise da un passaporto, delle piccole imprese che hanno potuto allargare il loro mercato senza ostacoli.
Ma questa libertà non è un fatto acquisito: è il risultato di un patto fra popoli europei che va rispettato giorno dopo giorno. Questo patto, purtroppo, è stato già violato diverse volte. Per rispondere alle giuste proteste popolari di fronte alla pressione migratoria, alcuni governi hanno deciso di reintrodurre le dogane e i controlli alla frontiera. Paradossalmente, a farlo per primi sono stati quei governi che per anni hanno sostenuto politicamente ed economicamente le ONG immigrazioniste e l’ideologia no borders.
Si è voluto imporre agli Stati europei posti sul confine a sud e ad est del continente l’accoglienza indiscriminata dei migranti e contemporaneamente sono state chiuse le frontiere interne per impedire i movimenti secondari fra uno Stato europeo e l’altro. Una decisione ipocrita che ha scaricato tutto il peso dell’immigrazione sulle nazioni di primo ingresso, provocando poi una serie di analoghe decisioni da parte di mezza Europa.
Ora, io vi domando: si è mai vista nella storia un’entità politica aperta all’esterno e chiusa al suo interno? Questo approccio è stato un tradimento clamoroso non solo del trattato di Schengen, ma dell’idea stessa di Europa in senso politico e culturale. Io mi auguro che questa lezione sia stata appresa: senza il contrasto dell’immigrazione illegale, senza confini esterni solidi, la nostra libertà vacilla e con essa le ragioni del nostro stare insieme.
Malik Azmani,on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, colleagues, today in this House, we celebrate a milestone that defines the very essence of our European Union: the 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement.
40 years ago, the Schengen area was born out of a shared vision. A vision where borders would no longer divide us, where freedom of movement would be a fundamental right for every European citizen. This was not just a policy. It was a promise of unity, opportunity and peace.
And as a Member of Renew Europe, I stand before you proud of our commitment to this vision. We have championed the principles of openness, cooperation and mutual respect. However, we must also acknowledge the challenges that have tested this vision: security issues, migration pressure and the rise of nationalism.
Let us be clear, the answer is not to retreat behind walls. The answer is to strengthen our external border management, to enhance the cooperation among Member States and with third countries, and to modernise our systems to ensure that Schengen remains a beacon of what Europe can achieve when we stand together.
Let this anniversary remind us of our shared responsibility to protect and uphold the freedoms that Schengen has granted us. Let it inspire us to work towards a Europe that is not just united in policy, but also united in purpose.
Terry Reintke,im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Schengen ist ein Versprechen – ein Europa ohne Mauern, weder auf der Straße noch in den Köpfen. Vor 40 Jahren haben wir gemeinsam beschlossen: Alle Europäerinnen und Europäer sollen sich frei bewegen können. Meine Generation und die Menschen, die noch jünger sind, können sich, ehrlich gesagt, gar nicht an eine andere Zeit erinnern. Es gab immer ein Europa ohne Grenzen, ein Europa der Freiheit, und Schengen war für uns ein Versprechen, auf das wir uns verlassen konnten.
Ich möchte das in der Vergangenheit sagen, denn gerade heute gibt es die eine oder andere Regierung – und ich möchte da insbesondere die deutsche Bundesregierung unter Kanzler Merz erwähnen –, die daran erinnert werden muss: Wer Grenzkontrollen wieder einführt, wer Notlagen erfindet und Gerichtsurteile ignoriert, der beschädigt Schengen und der beschädigt damit die europäische Einigung, der schikaniert Menschen auf dem Weg zur Arbeit, erschwert den Handel und belastet mutwillig die Beziehungen zu unseren Nachbarstaaten, und der bricht am Ende dieses europäische Versprechen.
Als jemand, der ohne Grenzen in Europa aufgewachsen ist, sage ich: Schluss damit! Wir wollen nicht zurück, nicht in die Kleinstaaterei der Schranken und nicht in die Vergangenheit des Stacheldrahts. Wenn wir heute 40 Jahre Schengen feiern, sollten wir das ernst meinen – und nicht nur dadurch, dass wir große Reden schwingen, während direkt nebenan hier an der Grenze zu Kehl Grenzstaus ganze Regionen lahmlegen.
Das Schengener Abkommen ist unsere Realität und unsere Zukunft. Lassen Sie uns feiern, dass wir vor 40 Jahren zusammengewachsen sind, und heute versprechen, dass dieses Europa ein Europa der Freiheit bleibt!
Pernando Barrena Arza,en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señorías, hace cuarenta años el Acuerdo de Schengen se presentó como el gran avance que iba a dar forma práctica al Derecho europeo de libre circulación de personas y mercancías y, de hecho, hoy en día los ciudadanos todavía consideran que la libre circulación de personas es uno de los logros más tangibles de la Unión Europea.
La realidad es que, cuarenta años más tarde, algunos Estados miembros —como Alemania, Francia, Austria, Dinamarca, Suecia, Eslovenia e Italia— establecen controles temporales fronterizos de carretera y dificultan el libre tránsito de personas. Son especialmente llamativos los casos de Alemania, que tiene en vigor controles fronterizos terrestres en nueve puntos hasta el 15 de septiembre, y Francia, que lleva comunicando de manera concatenada avisos de excepcionalidad en sus fronteras desde antes de la pandemia de COVID-19 y, la última vez, hasta octubre de este año.
Constatamos, por lo tanto, que hay Estados miembros que vienen abusando del Reglamento relativo a Schengen, que trasladan una situación de excepcionalidad permanente para controlar fronteras, lo que causa un grave perjuicio a las comunidades transfronterizas, que sufren retrasos innecesarios e incomodidades en su día a día, además de crear condiciones de inseguridad para los migrantes que desean acceder a la Unión Europea.
Es un abuso que, además de molestias, crea peligro y está costando vidas, como en la frontera del Bidasoa, donde han muerto ya diez personas migrantes.
René Aust,im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! 40 Jahre Schengen-Abkommen bedeutet Rückkehr zur Normalität. Stefan Zweig sagte einmal: „Die Welt und Europa vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg gehörte jedem.” Jeder sei gegangen, wohin er wollte, und blieb, solange er wollte. Tatsächlich, Grenzschutz und Passkontrollen im heutigen Verständnis gab es nur ausnahmsweise, nicht systematisch. Und wenn, dann gab es Warenkontrollen, nicht Personenkontrollen, mit dem Ziel, Zölle zu erheben. Aber diese Freiheit in Europa nach innen hatte zwei Bedingungen, die die Europäische Union heutzutage systematisch verletzt.
Erstens: Statt an der Staatsgrenze zu kontrollieren, galt früher die Kontrolle im Landesinneren. Städte und Gemeinden übten Niederlassungsrecht aus. Wer erwerbslos war, erhielt keine Sozialhilfe, sondern musste die Gemeinde verlassen. Im Kontrast dazu heute: Heute gilt aufgrund der naiven und viel zu weit ausgelegten Sozialrechtsprechung auf der europäischen Ebene und daraus abgeleiteten nationalen Rechtsprechung de facto ein Einwanderungsrecht in das deutsche Sozialsystem – das lehnen wir ab. Freizügigkeit für Erwerbstätige und Unternehmer – ja, innereuropäische Sozialmigration – nein.
Zweitens: Gegen äußere, historische Gefahren stand Europa immer zusammen. Ob es die Athener und Spartaner gegen die Perser waren oder die Franken gegen die Mauren bei Poitiers, und vor Wien verteidigten österreichische Milizen, deutsche Landsknechte und kroatische Adelsheere gemeinsam mit dem polnisch-litauischen König Sobieski Europa.
Die Freizügigkeit nach innen bedeutet, dass wir die Festung Europa nach außen brauchen. Wer Schengen erhalten möchte, der muss den Missbrauch nach innen vermeiden, und er muss Europa nach außen verteidigen.
PRÉSIDENCE: YOUNOUS OMARJEE Vice-Président
19. State of play and follow-up two years after the PEGA recommendations and the illegal use of spyware (debate)
Adam Szłapka,President of the European Council. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, honourable Members, let me start by thanking the Parliament for this debate.
The EU institutions and Member States have a joint responsibility to uphold the fundamental values on which the Union is based. It is clear that unjustified and disproportionate interference with individuals’ fundamental rights are not acceptable. We need to ensure that any limitations of fundamental rights are applied under very strict conditions. Furthermore, democracy is based on the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the freedom of information. We must create an environment that protects journalists and media professionals in delivering on these rights.
The EU Media Freedom Act contributes to such an environment. The illegal use of spyware also highlights the importance of developing measures to protect our cybersecurity. The Cyber Resilience Act is an important step in this regard, but we also need preventive measures to ensure individual protection by raising awareness among individuals on the existing risks.
Enhancing democratic resilience has been one of the Polish presidency’s priorities. The Council remains committed to tackling the current threats to our democratic institutions, as well as to strengthening the role of civil society in this process. This is an issue at the core of the recent presidential conclusions on strengthening EU democratic resilience. I am looking forward to the European Democracy Shield proposals to be put forward by the Commission later this year.
In concluding, let me refer back to the joint responsibility which the EU institutions and Member States have on these issues. On the one hand, it is the responsibility of the Commission to oversee and assess the implementation of acceptable EU law. On the other, each Member State must also carry out investigations regarding possible illegal surveillance in accordance with Union and national law.
Henna Virkkunen,Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for putting this very crucial issue on the plenary agenda.
The Commission strongly condemns any illegal access to interpersonal communications and other data stored on user devices. Any illegal access to the data of our citizens, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable. It undermines our core European values, such as the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.
The Commission has been looking at the illegal use of spyware from various angles of the EU law. It is important to address spyware in a holistic way because it poses challenges in many ways. First, in terms of rule of law and fundamental rights, but also data protection, media freedom, trade, cybersecurity, foreign interference and manipulation of information.
Some of these issues have already been addressed through legislation adopted by the Parliament and the Council. Others are addressed through non‑legislative tools. So what other existing measures do we have?
First, our data protection rules. They are very clear. They ensure that personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner. They also limit personal data collection for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes.
Second, the European Media Freedom Act is another important part of our legal framework. It includes safeguards to protect journalists’ sources and conventional communications against the illegal use of spyware. These rules on media freedom will enter into application this August.
They also include a general prohibition for intrusive surveillance software in devices used by media service providers, including journalists and related persons. We are currently working with Member States to ensure proper implementation of this and other provisions.
And third, in addition, we continue to report – when appropriate – on the issue of spyware, also in the annual Rule of Law report from the perspective of checks and balances and the protection of journalists.
In addition, the ePrivacy Directive prohibits the interception of communications as well as the access to and storage of information on user devices without their consent. Moreover, there is the Cyber Resilience Act, which sets cybersecurity requirements for hardware and software placed on the EU market. It introduces obligations for manufacturers, which will help to reduce system vulnerabilities often exploited by spyware.
It’s also important to note that the investigations into the earliest misuse of spyware are a matter for national authorities, not for the Commission. And we expect, of course, national authorities to examine to the core any spyware allegations.
We have also been following with the European External Action Service the Pall Mall Process. This is an international initiative addressing various aspects related to the use of commercial cyber intrusion capabilities. We see this as a very important initiative, the first of its kind at international level and with a very broad scope. Many Member States have already committed to the Pall Mall Process. We are now carefully also exploring options for any further action to decide on the most appropriate way forward.
It’s important to underline that we must, however, clearly separate the illegal use of spyware from the lawful access to data for law enforcement authorities. When law enforcement authorities use spyware for their purposes, the Law Enforcement Directive applies.
We must also acknowledge matters of national security, which are the responsibility of the Member States. However, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice, it is not possible for Member States to invoke national security in a general way. Member States must be able to demonstrate that national security would be compromised in the specific circumstances.
Furthermore, the legal use of spyware is only acceptable if it is non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reason of public interest, proportionate and also in compliance with legal certainty and also our Charter of Fundamental Rights. And we expect, of course, national authorities to examine any allegations of illegal use of spyware as this is their responsibility.
So, honourable Members, the Commission and the co-legislators have in recent years addressed the multiple issues of spyware. This Parliament has played a key role in this process. The issue remains complex and further work is needed here, also in view of the changing security landscape and also the emergence of new technologies. The recommendations of the European Parliament’s PEGA Committee have been very helpful to guide this work. I can assure you that the Commission is determined to protect the fundamental rights of our citizens to privacy, data protection and security.
Jeroen Lenaers,on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, imagine for a moment that someone is reading every message you’ve ever sent. Somebody is watching every video you’ve ever watched, listening into your private conversations with your children, your doctor, your partner. And this isn’t fiction. It’s happening also today. Also in Europe.
Spyware like Pegasus doesn’t just intercept data, it invades our dignity. And yes, there can be, of course, exceptional circumstances where it can be used by authorities to fight terrorism, to fight serious organised crime. But what we’ve learned in this Parliament after speaking to over 200 people, numerous fact finding missions and several elaborate studies is that, also in the EU, it is abused by certain Member States to spy on opposition colleagues, to spy on journalists, and to spy on activists.
And it requires a strong response because this is not only about national security, it is also about protecting the rule of law and the EU and the European Commission. It has a role. It has competences when it comes to protecting the rule of law. Even better, we have a responsibility to do so.
And we also know what to do because our recommendations were very clear. Set up effective a democratic and judicial oversight mechanism, as well as provide citizens with access to legal remedies, regulate the trade in and the use of spyware based on the conditions that we have formulated together here, make sure that the invocation of national security is indeed always subject to independent review and oversight, and several more recommendations. They’re all there.
What we need is action. And this is where I am a little bit disappointed in the European Commission. Two years ago, the Commission, in its response to our investigation, said that they were exploring the possibility of a non-legislative initiative. Now, this doesn’t sound very ambitious in itself, but still you managed to overpromise and under deliver.
Sadly, I have to conclude that the previous Commission did not do its job in this regard. So I’m really counting on you also, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, to make a difference here. I welcome your clear condemnation today, and I agree with you that further work is needed. So let’s get to action. Let’s do this further work and let’s protect all of our citizens from abuse.
Hannes Heide,im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissionsvizepräsidentin, Herr Minister! Schon wieder erschüttert Missbrauch von Spionage- und Überwachungssoftware unsere Demokratie in ihren Grundfesten. Und wieder zeigt sich – dieses Mal mit dem Paragon-Fall in Italien: Es handelt sich schon längst nicht mehr um Einzelfälle, vielmehr hat die Europäische Union ein Strukturproblem.
Nach wie vor ist die Europäische Kommission leider säumig. Wiederholt haben wir die Kommission aufgefordert, den Empfehlungen des PEGA-Untersuchungsausschusses nachzukommen und einen Rechtsakt mit klaren Regelungen vorzulegen. Was muss passieren, dass die Kommission entsprechend handelt?
Nationale Sicherheit kann und darf nicht als Begründung für die Aushebelung rechtsstaatlicher Prinzipien dienen. Rechtswidrige Überwachung von Journalistinnen und Journalisten, von Oppositionellen oder Juristinnen und Juristen höhlt unsere Demokratie aus.
Es braucht gemeinsame Mindeststandards für den Einsatz von Spyware, und was wir nicht brauchen, ist weiteres Zögern auch der neuen Kommission. Gerade jetzt ist ein Vorschlag überfällig, um unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger wirksam zu schützen und damit das Vertrauen in unsere demokratischen Institutionen zu stärken.
Maciej Wąsik,w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Policja i służby muszą dysponować nowoczesną technologią, bo inaczej będą ślepe i głuche wobec handlarzy narkotyków, przemytników ludzi czy skorumpowanych polityków. Ale oczywiście muszą być zachowane stosowne procedury.
W Polsce pierwszy taki system typu Pegasus pojawił się w latach 2012–2015, kiedy premierem był Donald Tusk. Pomimo szaleństwa medialnego w moim kraju – w Polsce – nie stwierdzono ani jednego przypadku, żeby służby stosowały takie narzędzia z pominięciem niezbędnych zgód sądowych. Powołana w Polsce do badania nieprawidłowości przy stosowaniu Pegasusa komisja sejmowa od 1,5 roku nie potrafi wykazać żadnych nieprawidłowości. Mało tego – okazuje się, że sama komisja działa nielegalnie, co stwierdził polski Trybunał Konstytucyjny.
Pegasusa najzacieklej atakują osoby, które mają najwięcej do ukrycia. Atakował go rosyjski szpieg uchodzący za dziennikarza, atakował go komisarz, wobec którego belgijska policja prowadzi postepowanie w sprawie brudnych pieniędzy, atakowała go była wiceprzewodnicząca Parlamentu Europejskiego oskarżona o korupcję.
W Polsce atakowany jest przez osoby, którym prokuratura zarzucała pranie brudnych pieniędzy albo które organizowały za publiczne pieniądze hejterskie farmy trolli. Będą mówiły, że są ofiarami. Nie dajcie się nabrać!
Służby nie mogą być ślepe i głuche. To kwestia bezpieczeństwa nas wszystkich.
Moritz Körner,im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Exekutiv-Vizepräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Stellen Sie sich für einen Moment mal vor, Pegasus, diese Überwachungssoftware, ist auf Ihrem Handy drauf. Was kann da alles passieren? Man kann Kamera und Mikrofon heimlich einschalten, Livemitschnitte von Gesprächen machen; man kann die Standortdaten des Handys abrufen, also wissen, wo Sie überall sind; alle Nachrichten lesen; Kalender, Fotos, Passwörter, App-Daten – auf all das zugreifen. Ziemlich krass, oder? Und genau das wurde in 14 Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union eingesetzt, oft auch illegal, um Journalisten, Oppositionelle und deren Familien auszuspähen.
Jetzt haben wir gerade von den Rechten hier gehört, dass das alles völlig in Ordnung ist, aber ich finde, das ist nicht in Ordnung, denn meistens ist es unter dem Deckmantel der nationalen Sicherheit passiert. Aber es ist eben ein krasses Eindringen in die Privatsphäre, es ist ein Ausspähen unserer Demokratie.
Dann fragt man sich, nachdem wir das alles ermittelt haben, in langer Arbeit im Untersuchungsausschuss, und zwei Jahre später: Was ist eigentlich passiert? Was tut Europa? Es schaut zu. Was tut die Kommission? Sie schaut zu. Sie kündigt an, sie ist besorgt, aber es gibt immer noch keinen Rechtsrahmen, keinen Schutz für die Opfer und vor allem keinen Schutz für unsere Demokratie. Die Kommission muss sich jetzt endlich durchsetzen, auch mal gegen die Mitgliedstaaten. Sie wollen das nicht, ja, das wissen wir. Aber wir brauchen hier Schutz, denn wer in Europa Demokratie ausspäht, der wird zur Rechenschaft gezogen – das muss in dieser Europäischen Union wieder gelten.
Saskia Bricmont,au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d’abord exprimer tout mon soutien aux citoyens, journalistes, activistes et élus victimes d’espionnage illégal en Italie, en Grèce, en Hongrie, en Pologne, en Espagne et ailleurs, et qui restent toujours sans réponse.
Se faire espionner via cette petite chose (l’oratrice montre un téléphone portable) laisse une empreinte indélébile sur la vie personnelle, professionnelle, l’entourage. C’est un viol des droits fondamentaux, du droit à la vie privée, de se rassembler et de la liberté de la presse. C’est la démocratie, l’état de droit, la sécurité des citoyens et de l’Union européenne qui sont attaqués.
Quatre ans se sont écoulés depuis que Forbidden Stories, Amnesty et Citizen Lab ont révélé les scandales d’espionnage illégal et une industrie cannibale de surveillance basée en Israël, avec l’aval du gouvernement Netanyahou, qui l’utilise pour menacer les gouvernements qui dénoncent son génocide à Gaza. Cela fait deux ans que ce Parlement a adopté les recommandations de la commission d’enquête pour légiférer et pour mettre fin aux abus, qui ont continué depuis à cause de l’inaction du Conseil et de la Commission européenne, qui vient une fois de plus les mains vides.
Où en est la communication promise il y a plus d’un an? Vous n’en parlez même plus. Qu’attendez-vous donc pour: 1) réguler l’achat, la vente, l’utilisation de ces technologies, 2) créer un laboratoire technologique européen pour soutenir les victimes et la société civile, 3) ouvrir des enquêtes dans les États membres qui, au nom de la sécurité nationale, mettent la sécurité des citoyens et de l’Union européenne en danger et ne répondent à aucune des conditions que vous avez énumérées? Des actes, s’il vous plaît, Madame la Commissaire!
Γιώργος Γεωργίου,εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Lenaers, χαίρομαι πραγματικά που, εκ μέρους του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος, κάνετε και εσείς την παραδοχή ότι, παρόλο που εργαστήκαμε πάρα πολύ σκληρά ως Επιτροπή PEGA και τους δώσαμε τα πάντα —γεγονότα, αμαρτωλές εταιρείες, ονόματα και διευθύνσεις— και τους κάναμε και συστάσεις, τα ένοχα κράτη δεν έκαναν τίποτα. Ή μάλλον, έκαναν: επέτρεψαν τη χρήση κατασκοπευτικού λογισμικού εναντίον των δημοσιογράφων. Αυτή είναι η αλήθεια, κυρία Επίτροπε και κύριε Υπουργέ.
Τα λόγια και οι ανέξοδες ρητορείες δεν αρκούν πλέον. Η κατάσταση τώρα είναι χειρότερη από την προηγούμενη. Το λογισμικό Predator εξακολουθεί να χρησιμοποιείται ενεργά. Μάθαμε και για το Graphite, το οποίο αποτελεί εξέλιξη του Pegasus που αναπτύχθηκε από την ισραηλινή NSO. Εδώ, ο ίδιος ο Ισραηλινός πρέσβης στην Ισπανία προειδοποίησε με περισσό θράσος τη χώρα με αποκαλύψεις από παρακολουθήσεις, επειδή η Ισπανία αναγνώρισε την Παλαιστίνη. Πείτε μας, τι δεν καταλαβαίνετε; Δείξτε επιτέλους θάρρος· απαγορεύστε τα. Διαφορετικά, είστε συνένοχοι —όπως βέβαια και σε τόσα άλλα.
Christine Anderson,im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Pegasus war doch nur die Spitze des Eisberges. Sie schrecken doch schon lange nicht mehr davor zurück, Kritiker, Journalisten und Oppositionelle auszuspionieren – mit Militärsoftware, ganz so wie in autoritären Staaten. Als Freiheitsrechte während Corona durch Lockdowns, QR‑Codes und Denkverbote in Serie fielen, da waren Sie doch alle ganz vorne mit dabei und haben das totalitäre Gebaren des Staates gefeiert. Pegasus verdammen Sie, die COVID‑Überwachungsapps, die haben Sie aber gefeiert.
Die systematische Verfolgung der Opposition ist doch schon lange keine Randerscheinung mehr, sie ist doch längst politischer Alltag geworden. Während der Corona‑Jahre wurde die Opposition pauschal diffamiert, ausgegrenzt und medial vernichtet. Wer Fragen hatte, galt als Gefährder, wer widersprach, als Demokratiefeind. Das erleben wir auch heute – bei Marine Le Pen, in Rumänien und in Deutschland, wo offen über ein Verbot der größten Oppositionspartei, der AfD, gesprochen wird.
Schreiben Sie sich eines hinter die Ohren: Die Demokratie wird nicht von der Opposition bedroht, sondern von denen, die die Opposition bekämpfen. Ich sage es auch noch einmal: Sie haben nicht Angst um die Demokratie, Sie haben Angst vor der Demokratie, und dafür sollten Sie sich was schämen.
Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! 2 év telt el a PEGA-jelentés óta, és mi, magyarok sajnos pontosan tudjuk, miért volt szükség erre a vizsgálatra.
A jelenlegi kormánypárt, a Fidesz visszaélt a Pegazus szoftverrel. Újságírókat és ellenzéki politikusokat figyeltek meg nemzetbiztonságra hivatkozva. Valójában a hatalmukat védték, nem az államot és nem a magyarokat.
Most ugyanez a rendszer új szintre lépett. Az elmúlt napokban kiszivárgott adatbázisok és hackertámadások, amikről maga a jelenlegi miniszterelnök számolt be, világossá tették: a Tisza közösségét célzott támadás éri digitális eszközökkel, megfélemlítési céllal.
Ez az orosz módszerek bevezetése Magyarországon. A Fidesz által épített Harcosok Klubja koncepciója és az önkénteseket célzó adatgyűjtések az orosz titkosszolgálati pszichológiai műveletek logikáját követik. Már nem csak politikusokat és újságírókat figyelhetnek meg, hanem aktivistákat és civileket is.
A Tisza semmilyen szenzitív adatot nem ad ki harmadik félnek, minden törvényt betartva a legbiztonságosabb módszerrel dolgozik. De világos, Orbán Viktor pánikban van, és bármilyen fegyvert bevetne, hogy a hatalmát megtartsa. Ezért támogatjuk a PEGA bizottság ajánlásait.
Erős szabályokra van szükség, mert az állambiztonság nem lehet ürügy a demokrácia leépítésére. A hatalom nem játszhat a félelem eszközeivel. A Tisza egy új, jogállami Magyarországért dolgozik.
Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, sometimes I wonder if the Commission thinks we are a Mickey Mouse Parliament. Two years have passed since the Parliament’s PEGA Committee issued a forceful recommendation to combat the illegal use of spyware within the EU. Yet two years on, the Commission has utterly failed to take decisive actions. It seems like we have a Mickey Mouse Commission – because it is either that or that the Commission refused to defend the people of Europe and uphold democracy, rule of law and human rights. In fact, some Member States, such as Italy and Hungary, are now in an even worse state than before: Hungary has been caught spying on EU officials and Italy on activists – clear violations of fundamental rights that remain unpunished.
The European Media Freedom Act was passed, but it protects only journalists and only narrowly. What about political opponents? What about activists, lawyers, ordinary citizens? It is high time for bold, unwavering actions from the Commission. Accountability must be enforced and Member States must be held to strict standards. It is time to end the Big Brother society some of our Member States have turned into.
Stefano Cavedagna (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, approfitto di questo dibattito di quest’oggi per denunciare un fatto grave, che mette in luce tutta l’incoerenza della sinistra italiana ed europea. Mi riferisco, in particolare, all’Italia, al caso Paragon, una tempesta mediatica scatenata ad hoc contro il governo italiano a seguito della scoperta dell’utilizzo dello spyware Graphite eventualmente su giornalisti e attivisti.
Per settimane, il governo Meloni è stato attaccato e accusato di violare i diritti fondamentali. Quello che noi abbiamo sempre detto è di aspettare che dichiari il Copasir, il Comitato per la sicurezza parlamentare della Repubblica, che, alla fine dei conti, che cosa ha detto? Non solo che non c’è stato alcun tipo di iniziative da parte del governo Meloni, ma ancor di più, che se sono state fatte delle iniziative contro alcuni giornalisti, queste sono state tenute durante il governo precedente di Giuseppe Conte, gestito dai Cinque Stelle e dal Partito Democratico.
Addirittura, alcuni colleghi hanno presentato un’interrogazione chiedendo se davvero il governo italiano stava minando la sicurezza della nostra democrazia. Chiediamo che vengano in Aula e in commissione a chiedere scusa, perché forse gli oscurantisti sono altri.
Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, spyware abuse is a massive threat to our fundamental rights, it corrodes democracy from within – we all know it. Yet, Member States again and again say they need it for ‘national security’. Well fine, then let’s talk national security, because spyware companies claim they make us safer, while evidence proves the opposite. The exploits they use are later on picked up by Russia and others and used against us. The highest number of targets are lawmakers, military officials, even governments – the odds are high that people in this very room are infected right now.
This is absurd, dear colleagues, given the security threats Europe is already facing. And AI is just turbocharging this danger: combining, analysing, exploiting data at a scale we have never seen.
If we don’t act now, the problem will be a hundred times worse in a year’s time. And we know how to stop this – we spelled it out in the Pegasus report two years ago. So to the Council: get your act together and fix this before it is too late. You in Poland above all should know this.
Pernando Barrena Arza (The Left). – Señor presidente, señorías, el listado de recomendaciones elaborado por la Comisión PEGA de este Parlamento fue apoyado por una amplia mayoría: apoyos de izquierda a derecha. Pero hoy, dos años más tarde, no tenemos constancia alguna de que esas recomendaciones hayan servido para algo.
Para empezar, hay que constatar que las víctimas del uso de este software de espionaje no han obtenido ningún tipo de reparación. Ninguno de los Gobiernos europeos implicados —particularmente Polonia, Hungría, España y Grecia— ha dado explicaciones ni se han depurado responsabilidades de ningún tipo. Y, además, sabemos que Marruecos ha utilizado ese software contra cargos políticos y periodistas, principalmente de España y Francia, y no se ha adoptado ningún tipo de acción jurídica o queja diplomática como consecuencia de esa injerencia por parte de un país ajeno a la Unión.
Así, la sensación final, como decía, es que las nuevas herramientas digitales permiten usos no legítimos contra la ciudadanía y sus derechos, y que, finalmente, nadie rinde cuentas por ello.
Quiero aprovechar para recordar que Israel es hoy día referente en la producción de herramientas tecnológicas para la vulneración de derechos humanos y en el despliegue de tecnología militar para el genocidio de Palestina. Ambos deben terminar ya. ¡Suspensión del Acuerdo de Asociación UE‑Israel ya!
Krzysztof Brejza (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Mówię do Państwa jako ofiara Pegasusa z 2019 roku, kiedy startowałem w wyborach do Parlamentu Europejskiego i do parlamentu polskiego. Przez pół roku byłem atakowany przez tych ludzi. Przez tego człowieka również, który dzisiaj zabierał głos, czyli przez polskich populistów. Przez pół roku ukradziono mi dziewięćdziesiąt tysięcy wiadomości, sfałszowano je i publikowano w ich rządowej, populistycznej telewizji w formie zafałszowanej. Wygrałem w tej sprawie 5 procesów, ale to jest dowód, jak Pegasus może być użyty do podsłuchiwania, do niszczenia ludzi, do niszczenia jednostki. Oni wysyłali nam nawet jako Koalicji Obywatelskiej fałszywe analizy wyborcze. Do tego był używany Pegasus.
Szanowni Państwo, niełatwo jest mi o tym mówić w sytuacji, kiedy przede mną przemawiał człowiek, który siedział w więzieniu w Polsce za zorganizowanie nielegalnej operacji przeciwko swojemu koledze. Ten człowiek, Maciej Wąsik siedział w więzieniu. On został skazany, on jest przestępcą za nielegalną operację. Jest tutaj tylko dlatego, że jego kolega z partii populistycznej, który jest prezydentem, go ułaskawił.
Także to narzędzie służyło populistom w Polsce do niszczenia niezależnych sędziów, adwokatów, polityków, do organizowania prowokacji, podsłuchiwania sztabu opozycji, wpływania na wyniki wyborów. To, co oni zrobili w Polsce, nie może się powtórzyć w żadnym państwie europejskim. A dziś wiemy, że w Polsce ich telewizja publikuje materiały z Pegasusa przeciwko byłemu przewodniczącemu Rady Europejskiej Donaldowi Tuskowi. To są ich populistyczne metody. Musimy być temu przeciw.
Sandro Ruotolo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, parliamo di PEGA. Dopo due anni, la Commissione non ha ancora proposto una normativa vincolante contro l’abuso degli spyware, né pubblicato la comunicazione promessa. Lo faccia ora, perché c’è un nuovo caso che scuote l’Europa: lo spyware Paragon Graphite. Secondo Meta, 17 paesi europei coinvolti, 61 utenze infettate, di cui 7 italiane. Apple parla di 150 paesi nel mondo.
Io faccio un appello a chi è stato spiato illegalmente: uscite allo scoperto, aiutateci! Dobbiamo proteggere giornalisti, oppositori e attivisti dallo spionaggio illegale, spiati da un software israeliano finanziato da fondi americani. Citizen Lab conferma che almeno due giornalisti italiani e uno europeo sono stati spiati.
La Commissione ha risposto alla mia interrogazione dicendo che l’uso illegale di spyware è inaccettabile, ma servono azioni concrete. Il 30 maggio, con i gruppi S&D e Verdi, siamo stati a Roma e abbiamo parlato con le vittime. Questo caso non è solo italiano, è europeo. Mi dispiace per il collega Cavedagna, ma non è aggiornato sui fatti. Non c’è democrazia senza libertà di stampa.
Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Może na początek mojemu rozentuzjazmowanemu przedmówcy z Polski mogę odpowiedzieć polskim przysłowiem: „Diabeł w ornat się ubrał i ogonem na mszę dzwoni”. Zarzuty wobec Polski od początku były polityczną kreacją. Działania, które były podejmowane przez polskie służby, zawsze były podejmowane pod nadzorem sądów i wymierzone były wobec osób, które realnie stanowiły zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa państwa, albo wobec osób, które były podejrzane o działania przestępcze.
Najlepszym przykładem jest tu osoba rosyjskiego szpiega GRU Pawła Rubcowa, który działał pod przykryciem hiszpańskiego dziennikarza, a jego zatrzymanie spowodowało wręcz histerię, również w tej Izbie, i przedstawiane było przez lewicowy establishment, jako przykład represji rządu PiS wobec dziennikarzy. Ten dziennikarz okazał się bardzo groźnym szpiegiem, a ci, którzy brali go w obronę, po raz kolejny okazali się pożytecznymi idiotami Putina.
Ale, Szanowni Państwo, o hipokryzji i podwójnych standardach świadczy to, że instytucje Unii Europejskiej nie reagują dzisiaj na łamanie praw podstawowych w Polsce przez obecny rząd Tuska za naruszenie fundamentalnych elementów demokracji, chociażby za nielegalne zajęcie mediów publicznych i finansowanie kampanii wyborczej w Polsce przez ośrodki polityczne spoza Unii Europejskiej, przestępcze wstrzymanie finansowania największej partii opozycyjnej. Jesteście hipokrytami.
Leoluca Orlando (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, grazie per aver ammesso che la Commissione nulla ha fatto dopo richieste e denunce sul caso Pegasus.
Grazie per aver ammesso che nulla inoltre risulta la Commissione ha fatto su ostacoli e condizionamenti da parte del governo italiano contro la libertà dei giornalisti, certificati al report Brunner 2024 sul Rule of Law. Legga il report del 2024, signora Commissaria. Nulla la Commissione continua a fare sulle accertate responsabilità del governo italiano che ha sostanzialmente autorizzato lo spionaggio da parte della società israeliana Paragon di operatori sociali, responsabili soltanto di salvare vite umane nel Mediterraneo e avrebbe fatto avere le intercettazioni ai criminali libici finanziati dal governo italiano e guidati dal torturatore Almasri, esponendo quegli operatori sociali a rappresaglie di ogni genere.
Il governo italiano risulta ancora avere impedito alla società Paragon, che ha denunciato ciò formalmente, di individuare gli spyware mercenari che hanno spiato i giornalisti italiani. Nessuna contestazione, nessuna procedura di infrazione da parte della Commissione, pur dopo tante denunce e tante affermazioni. Signora Commissaria, la cosiddetta relazione Copasir, provi a leggerla e vedrà, da questa relazione l’imbarazzante contraddizione di dover ammettere quello che ho appena finito di affermare.
Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, μας είπατε ότι έχουμε κάνει πάρα πολύ καλή δουλειά. Σας ευχαριστούμε πάρα πολύ. Και τι την κάνατε αυτή τη δουλειά; Αυτό είναι το μεγάλο ερώτημα. Στην περασμένη θητεία συστήσαμε την εξεταστική επιτροπή, βγάλαμε πορίσματα, εργαστήκαμε πολύ, και το 2025 έχουμε το Paragon στην Ιταλία.
Να σας ενημερώσω πως η δικαστική έρευνα στην Ελλάδα για το σκάνδαλο των παρακολουθήσεων μέσω του λογισμικού Predator εξελίσσεται σε θεσμική παρωδία. Ο αντεισαγγελέας του Αρείου Πάγου απέκλεισε κάθε ευθύνη της Εθνικής Υπηρεσίας Πληροφοριών, η οποία —άκουσον, άκουσον— υπάγεται στο γραφείο του πρωθυπουργού της Ελλάδας, και χαρακτήρισε «σύμπτωση» το ότι 27 πρόσωπα, ανάμεσά τους υπουργοί, ευρωβουλευτές, πολιτικοί και δημοσιογράφοι, παρακολουθούνταν ταυτόχρονα από το Predator με εντολή της Εθνικής Υπηρεσίας Πληροφοριών.
Παρά το ότι εντόπισε τους ιδιώτες πίσω από το λογισμικό, τους δίωξε μόνο για πλημμέλημα. Γιατί; Επειδή η δίωξη για κακούργημα θα οδηγούσε σε έρευνα από εφέτη ανακριτή, κάτι που η κυβέρνηση δεν ήθελε.
Έτσι, ένα από τα μεγαλύτερα πολιτικά σκάνδαλα έκλεισε χωρίς να περάσει ποτέ σε χέρια ανακριτή. Το παράδειγμα της Πολωνίας θα μπορούσε, βεβαίως, να το ακολουθήσει και η Ελλάδα. Νομίζω ότι είμαστε μετέωροι, πραγματικά, και είμαστε ανοχύρωτοι όταν τα όργανα δεν λαμβάνουν θέση και δεν κάνουν τη δουλειά τους.
Interventions à la demande
Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wysoka Izbo! Rozmawiamy o sprawie absolutnie najważniejszej, chodzi o to, czy państwa członkowskie mają prawo inwigilować bez uzasadnienia swoich obywateli? Czy kraje członkowskie, w tym rządy, mają prawo używać oprogramowania szpiegowskiego dla celów politycznych? Odpowiedź z tej Izby jest jednoznaczna i taka musi być. Nie mają prawa.
Dlatego też do dna trzeba rozliczyć wszystkie afery, które dotyczą tego, jak rządy krajów członkowskich, w tym były polski rząd, który był rządem partii PiS, używał tego oprogramowania wobec polityków, wobec prokuratorów, wobec adwokatów po to, żeby wpływać na decyzje i mieć informacje. To są oprogramowania takie jak Pegasus, które mają być wykorzystywane przeciwko terrorystom z Hamasu, z Hezbollahu, nie przeciwko własnej opozycji demokratycznej. Te sprawy muszą być wyjaśnione i ta rola instytucji europejskich w tym procesie jest kluczowa.
Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, iată, vorbim de un subiect atât de important ‑ programe de spionaj ‑ într-un spațiu democratic, când știm bine că spionajul era caracteristic statelor în care era dictatură.
Eu vin dintr-un stat comunist și este greu de înțeles de către cetățenii europeni cum putem să nu avem măsuri de contracarare a acestor programe. Dacă Comisia se mișcă atât de greu, după doi ani nu se reușește a se găsi măsuri. Trebuie protejați nu numai presa sau jurnaliștii, sau, eu știu, prim-miniștrii, ci și cetățenii, doamna comisar, pentru că sunt cetățeni care lucrează în mediul privat, sunt companii spionate, sunt oameni de afaceri spionați, șantajați, sunt cetățeni care nu mai doresc să intre în politică pentru că le e teamă că sunt urmăriți și spionați. Ce facem? Ce răspuns să dăm acasă? Dacă nu reușim să punem capăt, să nu ne mirăm de euroscepticism și de faptul că nu există încredere în instituțiile europene.
Trebuie să dați răspuns concret: se poate sau nu se poate face ceva, pentru că altfel democrația este pur și simplu dărâmată și nu putem să ne așteptăm la cei mai buni politicieni dacă oamenii sunt suspectați și sunt spionați.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, vicepresidenta Virkkunen, el único sentido de una comisión de investigación en este Parlamento Europeo, ya sea sobre Pegasus en la pasada legislatura —hace dos años ya—, ya sea como, en estos momentos, sobre el Escudo Europeo de la Democracia, es deducir lecciones de las malas experiencias, plasmarlas en un documento de conclusiones y que ese documento de conclusiones sea un mandato de iniciativa para la Comisión Europea, que brilla penosamente por su ausencia ante la gravedad de que un programa Pegasus —o Predator en Grecia— haya sido utilizado no para perseguir delitos graves —terrorismo—, con autorización judicial, en la medida en que es intrusivo sobre los derechos más fundamentales de la confidencialidad de datos personales y de las comunicaciones, sino para espiar a jueces, fiscales, oponentes políticos, activistas de derechos humanos, profesionales del Derecho, etc. Es una situación completamente inaceptable.
Por tanto, vicepresidenta Virkkunen, es absolutamente imperioso que la Comisión, en estos momentos, ponga en vereda esas actuaciones manifiestamente irregulares de los Estados miembros que espían a personas que nada tienen que ver con atentados contra la seguridad colectiva y deduzca también lecciones en relación con la empresa matriz en Israel, que es la que ha suministrado el software.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Domnule președinte, da, dumneavoastră vorbiți de spionaj și de democrație, hai să fim serioși, în Europa nu mai e demult democrație. În România nici nu a fost vreodată. În România de pe vremea comunismului eram înregistrați, spionați, iar în calitate de avocat vă spun că toți avocații din România sunt spionați și înregistrați. Fostul președinte Băsescu a plătit vreo 500 000 de euro pentru aparatură de înregistrare non-stop a avocaților din România.
Absolut tot ceea ce se întâmplă în România în politică și aici nu e vorba numai de a apăra jurnaliștii, cei mai mulți jurnaliști sunt cumpărați de către guvern și de către partidele care guvernează. Aici este vorba de avocați, de politicieni, și eu sunt urmărită și spionată, nenumărate mesaje ale mele sunt publice, dar în România este legal și chiar dacă este ilegal, în justiție judecătorii sunt urmăriți, spionați, sunt amenințați, sunt șantajați, la fel ca și oamenii politici.
Și da, doamna Grapini, are dreptate, oamenii nu mai vor să vină în politică, inclusiv din cauza acestor dosare penale cu șantaj.
Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Menschen Europas! In der DDR reichte ein Verdacht und die Stasi hörte mit. Heute braucht es nur ein paar Klicks und Pegasus infiltriert das Handy einer Journalistin, eines Menschenrechtlers, eines Abgeordneten – auch in EU‑Staaten. Doch was fast so gefährlich ist wie diese Software, ist die Tatsache, wer darüber entscheidet, wer sie erhält – ein einzelnes Unternehmen. Ein Unternehmen, das mit autoritären Regierungen Geschäfte macht, sich jeder demokratischen Kontrolle entzieht und aus Angst ein Geschäftsmodell gebaut hat.
Solche Unternehmen verkaufen keine Software, sie verkaufen Zugänge zu Gedanken, zu Leben, zu Strategien von Menschen, die sich für die Freiheit einsetzen. Sie tun das mit einer Preisliste, aber ohne Transparenz, ohne Ethik, ohne Reue. Wenn Europa das zulässt, dann werden wir bald nicht mehr überwacht trotz Demokratie, sondern wegen ihr. Demokratie braucht Schutz und nicht Spionagesoftware und keinen freien Markt für Überwachung.
(Fin des interventions à la demande)
Henna Virkkunen,Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this very topical debate; it clearly shows the complex nature of the illegal use of spyware we are facing.
Let me state again that the Commission’s view is very clear here: any attempt to illegally access data of citizens, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable. We are determined to protect the fundamental rights of our citizens to privacy, data protection and security.
We already have many rules in place: we have data protection rules, we have the ePrivacy directive and, just recently, we have adopted the Media Freedom Act, that comes into force in August, and also the Cyber Resilience Act. So we have already many, many rules in place. But I very much agree with you that when we look at the security environment where we are, the attacks against our democracies and also the very fast development of different technologies, I see that it is also important to see that further work in this field is needed. I am very grateful for the support from Parliament.
Le Président. – Le débat est clos.
20. The human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (debate)
Adam Szłapka,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, madam Commissioner, honourable Members, our last discussion on the Russian aggression against Ukraine took place only a month ago. The EU has firmly and repeatedly condemned the Russian aggression as a manifest violation of the EU Charter and international law. It is a global security and stability threat reaching well beyond Europe’s borders.
I take this opportunity to express my respect for this House. The very first resolution adopting during this term, last July, was on the need of EU continued support for Ukraine. It represented a strong political message from Parliament.
This unjustified war is especially tragic for the Ukrainian population. Let me recall the devastating impact of this brutal aggression on Ukraine. So many civilians and soldiers killed, millions of Ukrainians displaced or having fled abroad. Millions of Ukrainians lack basic humanitarian aid, especially food, water, healthcare, illegally detained civilians and numerous prisoners of war.
The fate of Ukrainian children who are lawfully deported and transferred to Russia and Belarus is particularly close to our hearts. The Council clearly expressed that Russia and Belarus must immediately ensure their safe return to Ukraine.
Let me be clear on the main topic of today’s debate. Russia commits war crimes and crimes against humanity by executing Ukrainian prisoners of war, and by subjecting Ukrainian prisoners and civilians to torture and other inhuman treatment. The Council has been very explicit on this matter. No crime can remain unpunished and international humanitarian law must be respected at all items.
Last week we saw Ukraine brought home the bodies of 1212 soldiers killed in the war of aggression by Russia. Last week too, Russia and Ukraine exchanged dozens of prisoners fathers exchange of prisoners expected to take place soon. Furthermore, thousands of Ukrainian civilians are detained in Russia whose families do not even know about their fate.
But let us face the reality. Russia does not want peace. On the contrary, Russia is escalating its war in Ukraine. Rather than focusing on the Istanbul peace talks, Moscow has increased its large scale attack on civilians in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. The situation is only worsening. This is why we should continue to call for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the UN Charter and international law.
A full and unconditional ceasefire is essential to stop human suffering. It is also a precondition for meaningful peace talks. Ukraine has accepted it and now it is for Russia to do the same.
We need to act now to further support Ukraine and further put pressure on Russia. Our position is clear and consistent. Ukraine needs to be in a position of strength to be able to negotiate a sustainable, comprehensive and just peace.
We are ready to support this effort with the tools that the EU has at its disposal. It is why we will treat the 18 package of sanctions against Russia as a priority in the last weeks of our presidency in the Council.
Marta Kos,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear honourable Members, dear Minister Adam Szłapka, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has had a devastating impact – the killing and suffering of civilians whose cities are subjected to air raids targeting civilian infrastructure; the suffering of those illegally detained by Russia, of prisoners of war, subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children to Russia; the suffering of those who struggle to earn their living among war-induced hardship.
The Commission stands firm in its condemnation of the numerous well-documented violations of international humanitarian law by Russia. This principled position translates into concrete action in support of the efforts of Ukraine and other members of the international community to ensure accountability.
First, supporting the International Criminal Court in its ongoing investigations against Russian perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – this has been possible since 2014, with Ukraine’s recognition of the court’s jurisdiction under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. This has become even more straightforward, with Ukraine having completed the ratification of the Rome Statute and becoming a full-fledged state party of the ICC on 1 January this year – a long-standing point of EU-Ukraine political dialogue and a commitment under the Association Agreement with the EU.
Second, supporting Ukraine’s own capacity to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity – as part of its commitments stemming from the ratification of the Rome Statute, Ukraine has recently adopted relevant amendments to its Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The EU has actively participated in the international Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, which supports the office of the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine in investigating and prosecuting international crimes committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Commission also supports numerous non-governmental initiatives in Ukraine, engaged in activities such as on-the-ground documentation of atrocities, collection of witness testimonies and support to civilians illegally detained by Russia.
Third, given the current gap in the ICC’s jurisdiction over Russia’s crime of aggression against Ukraine, the Commission and the VP/HR, Kaja Kallas, have been actively involved in work on the establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Most recently, VP/R Kallas and Commissioner McGrath joined representatives of an international coalition of states gathered in the core group at their high-level meeting in Lviv on 9 May, endorsing texts agreed by legal experts which will lead to the establishment of this tribunal. This text will subsequently be transformed into legal acts of the Council of Europe.
Fourth, the Commission supports efforts to establish an international claims commission for Ukraine. On 4 February this year, the Commission adopted a recommendation to the Council in this regard.
Finally, let me stress that the human cost of this war goes beyond the immediate suffering. The war has left Ukraine with a diminished workforce and a severely strained economy. This will profoundly affect the country’s ability to rebuild. Reconstruction is not just a financial task, it is a human one, and the long-term social and economic consequences must be acknowledged alongside the legal and political efforts. The Commission remains committed to engage in reforms that will enable rebuild the economy and infrastructure in Ukraine once the war is over, keeping rule of law in its very centre.
Next month, I will be in the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, where I will also be discussing the human aspects of Ukraine’s reconstruction – because behind every shattered school, every ruined hospital and every empty village is a life interrupted, and it is in our responsibility to help restore the future they were forced to put on hold.
Michael Gahler,im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Im Zusammenhang mit Russlands Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine wird vieles thematisiert: die Kampfhandlungen, Waffenlieferungen, die Zerstörung der Infrastruktur, die Millionen Flüchtlinge aus der Ukraine in Europa, die Binnenvertriebenen und richtigerweise unsere umfängliche Unterstützung. Weitaus seltener thematisieren wir das Schicksal der Ukrainer unter russischer Kontrolle.
Da sind zum einen die Kriegsgefangenen. Wenn man anlässlich von Gefangenenaustauschen den körperlichen Zustand der meisten freigelassenen Ukrainer betrachtet und anschließend deren Erzählungen hört, muss man zu der Schlussfolgerung kommen, dass Russland seiner Verpflichtung zur menschlichen Behandlung dieser Gefangenen in keiner Weise nachkommt. Wir müssen daher verlangen, dass Russland internationalen Vertretern des Roten Kreuzes jederzeit Zugang zu den Gefangenenlagern gewährt und diejenigen Wachmannschaften bestraft, die sich schwerster Menschenrechtsverletzungen gegenüber den Kriegsgefangenen schuldig gemacht haben.
Noch weniger Aufmerksamkeit gilt den willkürlich verhafteten Zivilisten in der russisch besetzten Zone der Ukraine. Am besten macht man das an einem Beispiel deutlich, und ich erwähne hier das Schicksal von Kostjantyn Sinowkin aus Melitopol, der am 12. Mai 2023 unter dem Vorwand der Verletzung der Ausgangssperre verhaftet wurde. Am 14. Juni 2023 wurde der Familie mitgeteilt, er habe gestanden, einen Mann in die Luft sprengen zu wollen. Am 29. Oktober 2023 wurde er im russischen Fernsehen vorgeführt. Mehrere Gerichtsverhandlungen fanden in diesem Frühjahr in Rostow statt. Er muss, weil er unschuldig ist, wie Tausende andere freigelassen werden. Lassen Sie diese Menschen frei, Herr Putin!
Thijs Reuten,on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commission, Council, dear colleagues, let me say upfront that I am a little bit impatient, angry even, in particular with the Member States, not with you personally, but with the paralysis.
A few weeks ago, European leaders spoke bravely in the presence of President Zelenskyy, but now Europe waits passively for America to realise that Putin’s peace negotiations are just a smokescreen and delaying tactics. We know this yields no results. We cannot speak of wake up calls anymore – we are awake, right? Are we? Because we lack focus, we lack courage, we lack resolve to stop the assault on Ukraine and on the rules-based international order.
We see the cruelty against thousands of prisoners of war, political prisoners, even abducted children. We see the daily barbaric attacks on innocent civilians. We see the pure terror of targeting hospitals, schools, markets, playgrounds. Putin’s goal is not peace; he seeks the defeat of European democracy, the rule of law and human rights. He remains an existential threat to all of democratic Europe.
Ukraine’s courageous resistance is our strongest answer. But we are too passive. For example, where are the Patriot systems some EU and NATO allies have enough of? We need them in Ukraine. What Europe needs to do to achieve sustainable peace remains very clear, yet every moment of passivity only increases the risk of our collective failure.
So I call on the Commission and the Council to be bolder, braver and faster. Equip Ukraine with everything it needs to fight back: militarily, financially and politically. Prioritise justice, accountability and reparations. Impose our most powerful peace-enforcing sanctions package on Russia. Speed up our independence from Russian fossil fuels, and seize frozen assets to support Ukraine. Seize them!
Do not wait for America’s approval on everything; Europe must lead decisively. Ukrainians are survivors – I’m not worried about that. But Europe? We control how deep the suffering will be for that survival.
Pierre-Romain Thionnet,au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, nous avons l’habitude de dire que les guerres font toujours des victimes civiles, mais qu’en est-il lorsque, sous les missiles, sous les drones et sous les décombres, ce sont des frères qui sont tués?
Parler de frères pour parler des Russes et des Ukrainiens, ce n’est évidemment pas remettre en question l’existence d’une nation, d’une identité et d’un peuple ukrainien. C’est faire remarquer leur proximité objective, celle d’une langue certes distincte, mais issue de la famille slave orientale, celle d’un même mythe fondateur, celle d’une même foi orthodoxe, quand bien même elle est déchirée entre deux Églises.
Nous, Européens, savons très bien à quel point les guerres fratricides sont les plus terribles. Nos croyances et nos mythes en sont les témoins: Caïn et Abel, Romulus et Rémus, Etéocle et Polynice.
Pourquoi Poutine, qui affirme à longueur de discours qu’Ukrainiens et Russes forment un seul et même peuple, s’est-il donc lancé dans une guerre d’anéantissement? Pour lui, l’Ukraine est un petit frère, mais c’est un frère inégal, un frère illégitime. On le sait depuis 2014, Poutine veut régner en maître dans son domaine impérial, il refuse que les Ukrainiens puissent choisir un autre destin que celui qui est décidé pour eux. Il préfère une Ukraine anéantie à une Ukraine libérée de la tutelle russe.
Ainsi, alors que les néoconservateurs américains bombardaient au nom de l’humanité, les Faucons russes pilonnent au nom de la fraternité; alors que les Occidentaux changeaient les régimes au nom des droits de l’homme, les Russes veulent le faire au nom de pseudo-droits historiques. À chaque fois, c’est notre conception d’un monde fondé sur les relations entre nations qui est battue en brèche et c’est l’Empire qui s’affirme au détriment des nations.
Chers collègues, la paix reste possible, mais elle devra s’accompagner aussi d’un changement de mentalité au sommet du pouvoir russe: considérer l’Ukrainien comme un frère, non pas pour mieux le ligoter et le détruire, mais pour reconnaître en lui un égal.
Michał Dworczyk,w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Traktowanie jeńców wojennych, jak również ludności cywilnej przez Rosjan wywodzi się niewątpliwie z tradycji sowieckiej i oznacza przemoc, tortury i śmierć. Jako Polacy wielokrotnie doświadczyliśmy tego barbarzyństwa, jak choćby w 1940 r., kiedy na rozkaz Stalina rozstrzelano ponad 22 000 polskich oficerów.
Dzisiaj ta zbrodnicza działalność jest kontynuowana. Licznie napływające z Ukrainy doniesienia o nieludzkim traktowaniu oraz mordach dokonywanych na jeńcach i więźniach są nie tylko naruszeniem wszelkich norm międzynarodowych, ale przede wszystkim rażącym pogwałceniem podstawowych praw człowieka. Takie czyny są hańbą dla ludzkości i nie mogą pozostać bezkarne. I choć trwająca wymiana jeńców między Rosją a Ukrainą jest krokiem w dobrym kierunku, to musimy jako Parlament Europejski wywrzeć presję na Rosję, aby zgodziła się na wymianę jeńców w formacie „wszystkich za wszystkich”.
Wobec tej poważnej kwestii prosimy, jako grupa Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów, o wsparcie naszej propozycji przyjęcia przez Parlament Europejski na następnej sesji plenarnej odpowiedniej rezolucji w tej sprawie.
Petras Auštrevičius,on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Minister, Madam Commissioner, autocratic Russia is waging an aggressive war to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and the whole Ukrainian nation.
As well as committing unspeakable war crimes and ecocide, Russia is illegally detaining and deporting Ukrainian civilians, including children.
The appearance of those who have been returned from Russian captivity best reflects what Ukrainians are experiencing. They look as if they have been through hell, reliving the horrors of the Holodomor, Nazi and Soviet concentration camps altogether at the same time.
The whereabouts of less than 2 000 Ukrainian civilians in Russian captivity have been identified. I am a guardian of one of them, Dmytro Khyliuk, a civilian journalist who was captured in his own garden near Kyiv in March 2022.
He remains a Russian hostage to this day, imprisoned in Correctional Colony No. 7 near Moscow, today’s Russian capital, without any contact with the outside world.
His father, Vasyl, has recently been diagnosed with stage four cancer and his only wish is to hear his son’s voice once again.
Russia must be held accountable to the war crimes it has committed and continues to commit. To bring Russia to the negotiation table, dear colleagues, we need all possible means, including international pressure, additional sanctions and unambiguous political signals.
Slava Ukraini!
Sergey Lagodinsky,on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, when Victoria Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist, returned home in February 2025, she had broken ribs, electrical burns, missing eyes and part of her throat gone. Now we know what happened to her – she was severely tortured and finally strangulated to death. Just one of many. Civilians, prisoners of war, Crimean Tatars accused of being terrorists, journalists who dared to speak Ukrainian – this is a war waged in torture chambers, psychiatric wards and filtration camps.
People – we know their names, we know their stories, and we know that silence equals complicity. That is why our resolution during the next session will expose the scale of these atrocities, from the abduction of thousands of children to the use of psychiatry as a weapon against free will. Our Parliament demands action, access and active involvement of the International Red Cross coordinated EU response. I assure you, we will do our best to stand on the side of Ukrainians.
PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ Wiceprzewodnicząca
Özlem Demirel,im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden heute zu den menschlichen Kosten des Krieges in der Ukraine. Dazu gehören die tausenden zivilen Opfer und die hunderttausenden Männer, die auf dem Schlachtfeld auf beiden Seiten gestorben sind. Dieser Krieg hat, ebenso wie viele andere Kriege auch, unvorstellbare Gräueltaten mit sich gebracht. Dieser Krieg muss enden. Stattdessen sagen Kommission und Rat heute wieder, wir sollten nicht auf Friedensverhandlungen setzen, sondern Sanktionen und Waffenlieferungen vorantreiben.
Die, die über Krieg entscheiden, trifft es in der Regel nicht. Dort auf dem Schlachtfeld kämpft weder ein Herr Putin noch ein Herr Selenskyj noch eine Frau von der Leyen oder ein Herr Trump, dafür aber die Armen aus Russland und der Ukraine: Arme Männer, die sich dem Krieg nicht entziehen können.
Übrigens können sich die Männer und auch die Frauen in Israel dem Krieg auch nicht ohne Weiteres entziehen. Ja, Russland hat das Völkerrecht gebrochen. Niemand hat das Recht, das Völkerrecht zu brechen. Aber warum redet die Kommission nicht über die Gräuel und die unmenschlichen Taten der israelischen Regierung in Gaza? Warum reden Sie nicht über den Völkerrechtsbruch im Iran mit den Bombardierungen? Warum reden Sie nicht über Frieden, sondern über Krieg, Krieg, Krieg? Sie tun es, weil Sie Geopolitik verfolgen. Ich verfolge Menschlichkeit.
Hans Neuhoff,on behalf of the ESN Group. – Madam President, colleagues, Donald Trump is a prudent statesman: he upholds the time-honoured principle of audiatur et altera pars – let the other side be heard as well. Trump speaks with Putin.
The European Union, by contrast, wants to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and bring the war to a close, but in doing so, it listens only to itself and to the Ukrainian side. No one has seriously attempted to consider the Russian perspective. No effort has been made to understand why Russian leaders perceive NATO’s eastward expansion – reaching as far as the Donbas – as an existential threat. The deliberate ignorance, I predict, is precisely why the EU is doomed to fail in the matter.
Trump is a realist; the EU acts blindly. George F. Kennan, the architect of the containment strategy, once called NATO’s expansion to Russia’s border a fateful error. Yet we continue to repeat it. History will judge us with utter harshness.
Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Godātie kolēģi! Rit Krievijas agresijas ceturtais gads. Diendienā ukraiņi tiek nogalināti, sakropļoti, aplaupīti, pakļauti vardarbībai. Īpaši smaga situācija ir okupētajās teritorijās, kur Ukraina cieš no Krievijas administratīvās varas un drošības dienestu noziegumiem, tiek patvaļīgi ieslodzīti un spīdzināti.
Šī Krievijas koloniālā politika ir noziegums, kuru nekad nevar [ne] aizmirst, ne piedot. Putins ir atjaunojis Staļina metodes – uz Krievijas tālākajiem novadiem tiek deportēti simtiem tūkstošu nevainīgu okupēto apgabalu cilvēku.
Taču vislielākais Kremļa noziegums ir 20 000 Ukrainas bērnu nolaupīšana. Viņu atrašanās vieta nav zināma, jo daudzi bērni ir piedzīvojuši adopciju, vārda un pilsonības maiņu. Lielākie tiek nometināti pāraudzināšanas nometnēs un pakļauti masīvai rusifikācijai un militārai indoktrinācijai. Kremļa mērķis acīmredzot ir viņus izaudzināt par karavīriem Krievijas armijai, kas cīnīsies pret savu dzimteni.
Tāda ir Putina Krievijas patiesā seja – agresija, deportācijas, bērnu nolaupīšana un nogalinātu civiliedzīvotāju masu kapi. Starptautiskajai sabiedrībai ir jāsauc pie atbildības Krievija par tās pastrādātajām zvērībām. Nesodāmība nedrīkst atkārtoties, kā tas notika pēc komunistu komunistiskā režīma sabrukuma.
Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kriget i Ukraina är inte bara en kamp om territorium. Det är en kamp om frihet, fred och demokrati. För varje dag bombas civila hem, barn växer upp i skyddsrum och människor fängslas och torteras. Enligt UNICEF har barn vid frontlinjen tillbringat över ett halvår i skyddsrum, och var tredje ungdom känner hopplöshet, särskilt flickor.
Precis nu när vi debatterar här så hålls civila och krigsfångar olagligt fängslade och det bombas över bostäderna i Ukraina. Vi får aldrig, aldrig någonsin vänja oss vid den här verkligheten, och vi kan göra skillnad. Vårt stöd till Ukraina måste vara tydligt och kraftfullt. Vi måste göra allt vi kan för att öka stödet till Ukraina ekonomiskt, militärt och humanitärt.
Jag vill därför att alla EU-länder nu, redan i år, når upp till minst en halv procent av sitt BNP i stöd till Ukraina. Det ser väldigt olika ut och jag vill att alla EU:s medlemsstater slutar att köpa den ryska gasen. Den göder Putins krigskassa. Vi kan göra skillnad, vi kan agera här och nu. Slava Ukraini.
Reinis Pozņaks (ECR). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Labdien, kolēģi! Kopš iepriekšējās debates par Krievijas kara noziegumiem ir pagājušas 77 dienas. Tie ir aptuveni 2500 droni un 160 raķetes, ko Krievija raidījusi pa Ukrainas pilsētām. Vairāki simti bojāgājušu civiliedzīvotāju, vairāki desmiti bērnu.
Vairākas sarunas dažādos formātos ir bijušas, taču Krievija turpina darīt vienīgo, ko tā prot – terorizēt civiliedzīvotājus, deportēt un spīdzināt. Darīt visu, lai iznīcinātu vai vismaz salauztu tās tautas, kuras nevēlas pakļauties krievu pasaulei. Tas nav nekas jauns. Gan Baltijas valstis, gan Ukraina un daudzas citas valstis tam ir gājušas cauri padomju okupācijas laikā.
Un kāpēc Krievija to dara? Jo viņi var! Jo nekad iepriekš nav sodīti par šādiem noziegumiem, un ir pārliecināti, ka tas nenotiks arī šobrīd. Un nenotiks tāpēc, jo mēs nevaram joprojām atteikties no Krievijas resursiem un mēs joprojām nevaram nodrošināt Ukrainu ar visu, kas tai ir nepieciešams, lai sakautu un sodītu agresoru.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Minister, Frau Kommissarin! Kateryna Korovina ist eine 28-jährige Ukrainerin aus der Region Luhansk. Sie wurde im März letzten Jahres auf dem Weg zur Apotheke vom russischen Inlandsgeheimdienst verschleppt und ist jetzt in einer Haftanstalt im russischen Rostow am Don. Zu zehn Jahren Haft ist sie verurteilt worden, weil sie angeblich kleine Spenden an die ukrainischen Streitkräfte überwiesen haben soll. Und während der Verhöre wurde sie unter Druck gesetzt, ein Geständnis zu unterschreiben, um für ein erzwungenes Propagandavideo gefilmt zu werden, in dem sie einen vorgehaltenen Text ablas. Vor Gericht widerrief sie mutig ihre Aussagen und erklärte, diese seien unter psychischem und physischem Druck gemacht worden. Sie bekannte sich als nicht schuldig und schloss ihre Erklärung mit einem selbstgeschriebenen Gedicht mit dem Titel „Horror in meinem Zuhause“.
Es ist gut, dass wir heute darüber sprechen, denn die Opfer haben einen Namen; sie sind nicht anonym. Und diese Menschen in den besetzten Gebieten haben unsere Aufmerksamkeit genauso verdient wie all die Opfer in der Ukraine. Und mir wird schlecht, wenn ich dann am rechten Rand jemanden höre, der sich Soziologe nennt, wie hier das mit Füßen getreten wird. Putin ist der Verbrecher und kein anderer mehr.
Virginijus Sinkevičius (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, every day Russia’s war against Ukraine brings new pain. Civilians are killed in their homes, children lose their parents. Russian bombs hit schools, hospitals and energy plants. Cities are left in darkness and people continue to live in fear.
And the suffering does not end at the frontline. Thousands of civilians and prisoners of war are held illegally by Russian forces. Many of them face torture, abuse, rape and even execution, including children. At least 75 of those cases are documented, and this is not a single event. This is a systemic terror against Ukrainian people. And these are not just numbers. These are lives. So every attack, every act of cruelty is a crime against humanity.
But words are not enough. We must act. We must deliver aid, secure the immediate release of all detainees, support Ukraine’s defence and demand accountability. The Council must tighten sanctions and close every loophole that fuels Russia’s war machine. The world cannot be silent. The human cost is too high. And it’s time to bring justice to Ukraine.
Petar Volgin (ESN). – Г-жо Председател, главните виновници за продължаването на войната в Украйна се намират в Брюксел. Ръководителите на Европейския съюз постоянно заблуждават украинския народ, че е възможна победа срещу Русия, че дори и Съединените щати да оттеглят подкрепата си за Киев, Европейският съюз ще предостави също толкова, ако не и повече пари и оръжия на Зеленски.
Другата голяма лъжа, която лидерите на ЕС не спират да повтарят, е, че има някаква ужасна руска заплаха и че ако Русия не бъде спряна сега, в следващите години тя ще завладее цяла Европа.
Защо евроначалниците говорят подобни обидни за здравия разум глупости? Защото са убедени, че ако уплашат достатъчно силно европейските държави, тези държави ще се свият страхливо и покорно ще изпълняват заповедите на Брюксел.
Евролидерите смятат, че оттук-насетне ще могат да прокарат всяка идиотска политика с оправданието, че тя „спасява Европа от руснаците“. Ето защо висшите брюкселски бюрократи, а не обитателите на Кремъл са основната пречка пред постигането на мир в Украйна.
Ако Европейският съюз се сгромоляса, това ще бъде не заради действията на Москва, а заради неадекватната политика на Брюксел.
Ľuboš Blaha (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážení kolegovia, to vám naozaj nepríde trápne, že tu tárate o sankciách proti Rusku, ale nedokážete ani len odsúdiť Izrael za to, že napadol suverénny Irán a ešte aj pácha genocídu na palestínskom národe? Kde sú sankcie proti Izraelu, pani Callasová? Kde sú dodávky zbraní pre Irán? Vojenská agresia odrazu nevadí? Von der Leyenová hanebne vyhlásila, že má pre izraelskú agresiu pochopenie, ale v prípade Ruska nikto nechce chápať, že sa Západ vojensky rozťahoval k hraniciam Ruska a že Rusko sa muselo brániť. Čo je toto za dvojaký meter? Moralizujete o stave ruskej demokracie, ale nevadí vám, že v Estónsku zavreli na šesť rokov novinárku za to, že mala proruské názory? Tomuto hovoríte sloboda slova, kolega? Tvárite sa, že protiruské sankcie niečo riešia, ale v skutočnosti tým iba Európa pácha kolektívnu ekonomickú samovraždu. Ak zakážete dovoz všetkých energií z Ruska, nepotrestáte Rusov, ale nás Slovákov či Maďarov. Ale to je vám jedno, že? Zobuďte sa, vážení, prestaňte s tým dvojitým kilometrom, prestaňte s nenávisťou voči Rusku, prestaňte s tým rinčaním zbraňami.
(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty)
João Oliveira (The Left),Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Blaha, ouvi com atenção a sua intervenção e queria fazer-lhe uma pergunta. Depois de todas as intervenções que ouvimos ao longo deste debate expressarem preocupação com a perda de vidas humanas, com a destruição da Ucrânia, a pergunta que lhe quero fazer é simples: o senhor deputado acha mesmo que a União Europeia e as suas Instituições estão comprometidas com uma solução de paz e de segurança coletiva, não apenas na Ucrânia, mas para toda a Europa?
O senhor deputado acha que, quando as Instituições da União Europeia apontam o caminho do militarismo, da corrida aos armamentos, do reforço das medidas de confrontação, é mesmo esse o caminho da paz? Ou, pelo contrário, a União Europeia está a incentivar a guerra para que ela se prolongue indefinidamente?
Ľuboš Blaha (NI),odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážený pán kolega, som presvedčený, že Európska únia, ktorá bola kedysi projektom mieru, sa premenila na vojnovú inštitúciu. Jediným cieľom týchto ľudí, čo po mne kričia, je zbrojiť, zbrojiť a zbrojiť a nenávidieť Rusko a zároveň obhajovať Izrael a genocídu na Palestíne. Absolútne pokrytectvo. Tí ľudia sú absolútne smiešni a máte absolútnu pravdu aj v tom, že dneska už celý svet hovorí o tom, že jediná cesta k mieru na Ukrajine je rokovať s ruskou stranou. Aj preto sme boli my piati alebo šiesti poslanci Európskeho parlamentu v Moskve, aby sme rokovali aj s ruskou stranou, lebo iným spôsobom mier dosiahnuť nevieme.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la guerra en Ucrania está alcanzando unos niveles de crueldad y de inhumanidad impensables. Putin y su ejército están bombardeando sistemáticamente y voluntariamente hospitales, escuelas, infraestructuras básicas, centrales de electricidad, depósitos de agua… claramente con el objetivo de romper la voluntad de resistencia del heroico pueblo ucraniano y de provocar olas de inmigración hacia Europa. No lo va a conseguir: ni va a romper la voluntad del pueblo ucraniano ni va a conseguir sus objetivos.
Exigimos que se libere a los más de 35 000 niños deportados forzosamente a Rusia y adoctrinados. Exigimos que se libere a los más de 16 000 prisioneros adultos que están en cárceles rusas torturados, masacrados, con desnutrición y que son asesinados. Exigimos el intercambio de los miles de prisioneros que están en campos de concentración en Rusia —en el siglo XXI, sí, campos de concentración—. Exigimos su liberación. Y exigimos ante todo que se permita el acceso incondicional e ilimitado al Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja y a otros organismos internacionales humanitarios para que exijan el cumplimiento de los términos de los Convenios de Ginebra que amparan a los soldados y a los civiles retenidos. Y, en cuarto y último lugar, exigimos que Europa mantenga un sistema de sanciones cada vez más robusto, que seamos capaces de cerrar todas las vías de escape para que el precio de seguir la guerra le sea insoportable a Putin y le obliguemos a venir a la mesa de negociación.
Tobias Cremer (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, on my last trip to Ukraine, I met a remarkable young man named Vlad. Vlad is not a Rambo‑like soldier, but a skinny teenager from Kherson. But still, Putin fears Vlad so much that, alongside 20 000 other Ukrainian children, he had him abducted from his home, sent him into a reeducation camp deep inside Russia and submitted him to violence and solitary confinement.
Colleagues, why is Putin so afraid of Ukrainian children? It’s because this isn’t a normal war against a government or against an army. It’s a war conducted against the Ukrainian civilian population. Putin is so afraid of these children because they are the future of Ukraine’s European future. They symbolise the freedom that cannot be broken.
Vlad himself has shown this will to freedom when one night in the camp, he went up to the flagpole and tore down the Russian flag and pulled up his own underwear instead. In this sign of resistance that could have cost him his life, he has shown real courage and real strength.
Colleagues, if Western leaders had shown even half of that courage in their support for Ukraine that Vlad and so many Ukrainian civilians have shown to their tormentors, this war could already be over. So let us finally muster up our own courage, put Ukraine in a position of strength, seize Russia’s frozen assets and force Putin to the negotiating table, so that Vlad and every single Ukrainian child can regain not only their freedom, but the future of their country.
Dan Barna (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, să vorbim despre adevăr. De mai bine de 1000 de zile, Ucraina se luptă cu un agresor scelerat. Zilnic, bombe rusești lovesc spitale, locuințe, grădinițe, școli. Civilii ucraineni sunt răpiți și torturați. Prizonierii de război sunt supuși la tratamente de o cruzime îngrozitoare și le sunt refuzate cele mai elementare drepturi din legislația internațională.
Acesta este costul uman pe care îl vedem în fiecare zi, iar nevoia de acțiune devine mai importantă ca niciodată.
În primul rând, accelerarea integrării europene a Ucrainei este un imperativ moral și un scut pentru protecția viitorului acestei țări. În al doilea rând, acest scut are nevoie de energie, de forță. Sprijinul nostru militar pentru Ucraina trebuie susținut și mărit. Apărarea Ucrainei este apărarea Europei. Iar în al treilea rând, trebuie să învățăm din curajul ucrainenilor. Experiența lor directă de luptă trebuie integrată în strategiile noastre de securitate colectivă.
Istoria ne privește astăzi. Ce trebuie să rețină este că ne-am ridicat la înălțimea acestui moment. Că am luptat pentru libertate și am făcut tot ce a stat în puterea noastră pentru a obține această libertate și pace justă. Slava Ucraina!
Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, an essential part of Russian warfare in Ukraine is war of terror against civilians. Use of rape, torture, detentions illegally and illegal deportations of children are a big part of Russian warfare. This is systematic. Russian propaganda tries to dehumanise Ukrainians. They try to strip their nationhood and they try to strip their identity. This is part of Putin’s imperialism that must be held accountable.
Total civilian casualties since February 2022 stand at 13 134 deaths and nearly 32 000 injured, as per the UN. Over 19 500 children have been deported and 16 000 Ukrainian civilians remain illegally detained by Russia, subject to torture and mock trials.
We must demand immediate, unconditional release of all civilians and POWs, including the children. We must demand full humanitarian access to Red Cross, we must increase sanctions, and we must hold Putin accountable also to the war crimes in the special tribunal, in the Council of Europe and in the ICC.
Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ukraińskie siły zbrojne walczą o przyszłość Ukrainy w Europie, ale ukraińskie siły zbrojne również walczą o obecność Ukrainy w sojuszach Zachodu, które zagwarantują w przyszłości trwały pokój i rozwój. Ta droga do NATO jest zgodna z deklaracjami szczytu waszyngtońskiego i powinna pozostać nieodwracalna. Komisja, jak również polska prezydencja w Radzie Unii Europejskiej wspierała nowe programy uzbrojenia oraz rozwoju przemysłu obronnego i zabiegała o uwzględnienie w nich Ukrainy.
Ukraina posiada unikalne doświadczenie wynikające z trwającej i pełnoskalowej wojny. Rozwinęła nowe technologie, rozwinęła przemysł obronny, w szczególności produkcję dronów, które mogą być również użyteczne dla naszego sektora przemysłowego. Kluczowy będzie Szanowni Państwo, o tym trzeba bardzo wyraźnie powiedzieć, szczyt NATO w Hadze.
Szczyt NATO w Hadze, który dzieje się w okolicznościach również geopolitycznych, bo ta rosyjska agresja nie dzieje się w próżni. Za Moskwą stoi Iran, stoi Korea Północna. Iran dostarcza drony, Korea pociski – to wspólnicy z osi zła. Dlatego też szczyt NATO w Hadze powinien po pierwsze podkreślić naszą kolektywną gotowość do obrony, ale również przyjąć nową strategię NATO dotyczącą Rosji, która stanowi strategiczne zagrożenie dla naszego bezpieczeństwa.
Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, Putin’s tyranny can only be brought to an end through EU unity and decisive actions. The continued import of coal and oil by some Member States directly enables Putin’s war efforts, filling his war machine and enabling him to escalate missiles and drone attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians, as he has done over the last months.
It is good to condemn, but more important to act. We must support Ukraine with all available means to ensure that they not only withstand the war, but win the war. This support must be comprehensive: sanctions, military aid, humanitarian assistance, macroeconomic support – there can’t be any limits to our support. However, right now, EU Member States are pumping more money into Putin’s war machine than support to Ukraine. How is that going to ensure that Ukraine will be in a position of strength? Because a position of strength is important to ensure that Putin is forced to the negotiating table and to ensure that Ukraine wins, that we win.
Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Rosja prowadzi wojnę na wyniszczenie, wojnę obliczoną na eliminację całego narodu ukraińskiego. Rosja ma mnóstwo ludzi, takie jest od zawsze ich podejście. Jak mówił już Stalin: (poseł mówi w języku nieurzędowym) –they have lots of people. Dla Rosji ludzie to tylko liczby. Skoro nie szanowali i nie szanują życia własnych obywateli, tym bardziej nie mają szacunku dla tych, których postrzegają jako wrogów.
Nie mają szacunku dla bombardowanych ukraińskich cywili, dla przetrzymywanych w nieludzkich warunkach jeńców wojennych, dla setek porwanych do Rosji ukraińskich dzieci. To jest totalna przepaść kulturowa między nimi a nami. Nie możemy zmienić ich mentalności, uwolnić ich zniewolonych umysłów.
Możemy tylko przez nasze zdecydowane działania zniechęcać Putina do kolejnych ataków na Ukrainę, do ataku na Europę. Wszyscy ci, którzy tu w Parlamencie Europejskim sympatyzują z Putinem, uznają jego racje, jeżdżą do Moskwy i chcą z nim paktować, otwierać Nord Stream, są współodpowiedzialni za okropieństwa tej przedłużającej się wojny.
Życie ludzkie jest wartością nadrzędną. Życie każdego z nas. Miejmy to na uwadze, gdy sympatycy Putina i spadkobiercy NSDAP marzą o unicestwianiu całych narodów. Nigdy więcej takich zbrodni!
Mika Aaltola (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, next year, American aid to Ukraine will evaporate; let’s stop pretending. We face a brutal truth – Europe now must finally deliver on its promises or betray everything we claim to stand for. We are brilliant at slogans, we use soaring rhetoric, brave words, yet Ukraine bleeds. We have poured more cash into Putin’s war machine for energy than goes into the fighting for Ukraine.
We promised Ukraine EU fast-tracking, but when we look closer, are we keeping those promises? The grand announcement has been nothing but PR so far. Virtue signalling, a weak-kneed avoidance of the actual gut punch needed to defeat Russia.
Consider this: Ukraine is Europe’s breadbasket, it is the most war-experienced military in Europe, a nation forged in fire. Having them as an ally would be a great promise for the security of this continent. But are we just bluffing? Are we a continent missing in action? It is time to shed illusions and face fire. When the Nuremberg War Tribunals ended, they declared that a war of aggression is the supreme war crime. All the other war crimes follow from that: detention of civilians, stealing of children. And we must now face the aggressor.
Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora presidenta, crímenes de lesa humanidad: así, sin paliativos. Así define el informe de la ONU lo que está pasando con las desapariciones de civiles ucranianos, desapariciones forzadas, deportaciones a Rusia, desoyendo todo el Derecho internacional. Violaciones de los derechos humanos, tortura y violencia sexual: esto es lo que el Gobierno de Putin comete contra ciudadanos ucranianos que el régimen percibe como amenaza y que han sido capturados durante la guerra —políticos locales, funcionarios o periodistas, entre otros—. También se produce el asesinato y la desaparición del personal militar capturado.
Comisaria, necesitamos el retorno inmediato de los desaparecidos, especialmente de los niños ucranianos transferidos y deportados por la fuerza a Rusia. Solo la Unión Europea es la garantía para asegurar el futuro: una Ucrania democrática y con justicia social.
No podemos fallar al pueblo ucraniano. Su lucha por la libertad es nuestra lucha por la democracia.
Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, di fronte ai gravi costi umani e alla crudeltà dell’aggressione russa, una guerra alle nostre porte che mina direttamente la nostra sicurezza, non possiamo più limitarci solo a dichiarazioni di condanna o a pacchetti di sanzioni.
L’Europa deve passare dalla solidarietà all’assunzione di responsabilità. Per questo serve una svolta concreta nella nostra capacità difensiva, dove difesa non significa solo carri armati o investimenti bellici. Difesa oggi vuol dire protezione delle infrastrutture civili, dei nostri ospedali, delle reti energetiche digitali, vuol dire sicurezza alimentare, mobilità strategica, cybersicurezza. Vuol dire costruire una capacità di risposta credibile contro minacce che non sono più convenzionali, ma ibride, asimmetriche e pervasive.
È giunto il momento di rafforzare con grande convinzione il pilastro europeo della NATO per rendere l’alleanza più forte, più equa e più credibile. L’unità transatlantica è, e resta, il nostro orizzonte strategico, ma perché sia sostenibile tutti devono fare la propria parte e l’Europa oggi deve finalmente assumersi la responsabilità della propria sicurezza.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, les Ukrainiens ont montré, avec leur opération de bombardement des aéroports militaires russes, qu’ils étaient parfaitement à même de s’introduire profondément en territoire russe et de produire des dégâts conséquents, par choix des dégâts militaires. À la réaction rapportée du chef du Kremlin qu’il allait devoir riposter à ces attaques, ma première pensée a été: riposter comment? En tuant de nouveau des civils?
D’abord, difficile de qualifier quelque attaque que ce soit de la Russie contre l’Ukraine comme une riposte. C’est l’armée russe qui occupe l’Ukraine, qui l’attaque sans répit. Et puis, ce qui se passe sous mes yeux, c’est l’attaque systématique de civils par le Kremlin. Les bombardements russes ont pour objectif, de manière répétitive, quotidienne des villes ukrainiennes, et les hommes, femmes et enfants qui y vivent.
Nous parlons souvent des enfants déportés, mais jamais assez. Il faut le faire encore et encore. Et il faut aussi dénoncer, sans se lasser, le fait que les autorités russes détiennent des civils emprisonnés sans autre motif qu’ils sont ukrainiens. L’impunité ne peut gagner. Nous devons le dénoncer et faire en sorte qu’un jour les responsables soient jugés et punis.
Ingeborg Ter Laak (PPE). – Voorzitter, de schade van oorlog gaat veel verder dan gebouwen, verder dan infrastructuur. De echte littekens zitten in mensen. Mannen, vrouwen en kinderen in Oekraïne zijn slachtoffers van onvoorstelbaar geweld: verkrachtingen, gevangenneming, marteling, ontvoering. Het zijn mannen, vrouwen en kinderen die niets anders willen dan in vrede leven. Zij zien hun toekomst aan flarden worden weggeschoten.
Toch mogen we, te midden van al deze horror, niet vergeten dat achter elk uniform, aan welke kant ook, een mens zit: een zoon, een dochter, een vader, een moeder. Aan Oekraïense zijde, maar ook aan Russische zijde. Ook zij hebben recht op bescherming. Ook zij hebben recht op een toekomst.
Oorlogsgevangenen zijn geen pionnen op een schaakbord. Het zijn mensen, en mensenrechten gelden ook in tijden van oorlog. De uitruil van krijgsgevangenen en lichamen tussen Oekraïne en Rusland — recent nog — toont aan dat die rechten niet vanzelfsprekend worden gerespecteerd, en dat is onaanvaardbaar. Europa mag niet zwijgen. Wij moeten staan voor menselijke waardigheid, overal en altijd.
Zgłoszenia z sali
Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Już trzy lata trwa inwazja Rosji na Ukrainę, inwazja na wyniszczenie Ukrainy. Każdego dnia niszczone są miasta, wsie, spadają rakiety na szpitale, przedszkola, żłobki, gwałcone są kobiety i dzieci, porywane są dzieci. My doskonale wiemy, Polacy, jak niebezpieczna jest Rosja. Znamy z historii i pamiętamy, jak wyglądało porwanie ludności cywilnej, wysyłanie ludności cywilnej na Sybir i zbrodnie katyńskie.
I przestrzegaliśmy Europę, jak niebezpieczna jest Rosja. Przestrzegaliśmy i mówiliśmy, że trzeba zatrzymać Rosję. Dziś cała Europa jest zobligowana i zobowiązana do tego, aby zatrzymać imperium zła, aby zatrzymać Rosję, która zagraża Europie i światu.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, seguramente, entre lo mejor de la respuesta europea después de tres años de guerra de agresión en Ucrania se encuentra la activación en origen de la Directiva de protección temporal, gracias a la que once millones de personas desplazadas procedentes del conflicto en Ucrania han podido ingresar en la Unión Europea con libre circulación, residencia y acceso al mercado de trabajo.
Pero, todavía, tres años después, está por ver que la Unión Europea ponga sobre la mesa una propuesta diplomática realista, un plan de paz que dé esperanza a esos miles de niños secuestrados en Rusia y a los miles de prisioneros de guerra por ambas partes.
Por tanto, creo que, después del vacío que plantea la patética inanidad de Trump, que habló de resolver el conflicto en veinticuatro horas pero que no parece haber impresionado mucho a Putin, y después de tantos planes de sanciones, es el momento de que la Unión Europea ponga sobre la mesa un plan de paz que dé esperanza a esos miles de niños ucranianos secuestrados en Rusia y dé también una solución humanitaria a los prisioneros de guerra.
Annamária Vicsek (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Az orosz–ukrán háborúnak nem lehet nyertese. A háborúnak csak vesztesei vannak: özvegyek, árvák, gyermekeiket sirató anyák. A kárpátaljai magyarság ukrajnai kisebbségként hatványozottan veszélyeztetett ebben a konfliktusban.
Ha van közösség, amely igazán érti, mit jelent kisebbségiként háborúba kényszerülni, azok mi vagyunk, vajdasági magyarok. A délszláv háborúk idején magyar férfiakat vittek el fegyverrel harcolni szerb vagy horvát oldalon, attól függően, hol éltek. Az nem a mi háborúnk volt. Ahogy a kárpátaljai magyarok is akaratukon kívül sodródtak a háborúba.
Magyarország kezdettől a béke pártján áll, és ma már nincs ebben egyedül. Elindult egy nehéz, de reményt adó párbeszéd, amelynek révén hadifoglyok térhettek haza, elesett katonák kaphattak méltó temetést. De az emberek nem temetni akarják a szeretteiket, hanem hazavárják őket élve.
Az Európai Uniónak nem szítania, hanem csillapítania kellene a háborút. Ukrajnának, a térségnek és egész Európának béke kell.
Magdalena Adamowicz (PPE). – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Europejczyku, zamknij oczy. Wyobraź sobie, że twoje dzieci i ty musicie patrzeć, jak twoja żona, a ich matka, jest gwałcona przez ruskich sołdatów. Wyobraź sobie, jak potem musisz patrzeć, jak ci sołdaci gwałcą twoje dzieci. A potem przychodzą inni i zabierają te dzieci. I nigdy już ich nie zobaczysz. Spędzasz miesiące zamknięty w piwnicy, torturowany i głodzony. Zazdrościsz sąsiadom z mieszkania obok, którzy umarli od razu we własnym łóżku, kiedy ruskie bomby spadły na wasz dom.
Rosja nie prowadzi wojny. Rosja dokonuje eksterminacji cywili i zrównuje Ukrainę z ziemią. To nie wojna, to apokalipsa. Niuansowanie i używanie sprawy pomocy Ukrainie do brudnej polityki to stanięcie w jednym szeregu z rosyjskimi zbrodniarzami.
Tu, w tej Izbie, przypominam słowa Einsteina: świat nie jest zagrożony przez złych ludzi, ale przez tych, którzy pozwalają złu działać. Dlatego nam nie wolno pozwolić ruskiemu złu działać dalej.
Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, we have heard many right words about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, including immeasurable human losses and sufferings. Regrettably, we have also heard extreme right and left representatives aligning themselves with the aggressor and spreading Russian lies.
There is no doubt that the aggression is the gravest international crime, no doubt that Russia is committing numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes, no doubt that we have to support Ukraine.
However, first and foremost, we must believe in the victory of Ukraine, in the victory of international law and justice. All the delays and shortcomings in supporting Ukraine can be explained by a lack of belief and consequently, a lack of determination.
If Israel, which is almost ten times smaller than Iran, can dismantle the latter’s aggressive potential, why couldn’t Ukraine, with our support, do the same?
Our belief in Ukraine and trust in ourselves is the most important in compelling the aggressor to peace, and it is indeed the issue of our survival. This is also a burden that history has placed on us.
João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária Kos, há mais de 11 anos que a guerra se arrasta na Ucrânia.
A realidade demonstra que é urgente o diálogo; um diálogo para uma solução política do conflito, um diálogo que dê resposta aos problemas da segurança coletiva e do desarmamento na Europa, um diálogo que vise o cumprimento dos princípios da Carta da ONU e da Ata Final da Conferência de Helsínquia. O diálogo retomado em Istambul entre a Rússia e Ucrânia é um importante passo. Deve contribuir para fazer avançar um processo negocial que responda às causas do conflito e abra caminho a uma paz justa e duradoura na Europa.
Impõe-se que os Estados Unidos, a NATO e a União Europeia ponham fim às manobras que visam prolongar a guerra e obstaculizar uma solução política para o conflito.
Há que parar de insistir na confrontação e na mobilização de milhares de milhões para os armamentos e a guerra –– recursos que faltam e são retirados à coesão, aos salários, à saúde, à educação, à habitação, enfim, à resposta aos problemas dos povos.
É preciso travar este caminho para o precipício e colocar a paz como verdadeiro futuro da humanidade.
Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisară, v-am ascultat cu atenție și trebuie să spun că sunt dezamăgită. Ne-ați făcut niște informări, de fapt. Cetățenii care ne ascultă aici s-au săturat de trei ani noi să dezbatem, să facem rezoluții, Comisia să constate și de fapt să nu se întâmple nimic.
Mor oameni acolo, doamnă comisară. Țara mea a primit refugiați, și copii, și adulți. Sigur, nu putem să mutăm toată populația Ucrainei. Întreb: există o soluție pentru pace? Ați discutat la nivel internațional, cu comunitatea internațională? Se poate ca un singur om să înfrângă un glob pământesc? Nu se poate!
Eu cred că diplomația a rămas repetentă, nu s-au pus bazele unei negocieri încât să punem capăt acestui război și acestui măcel. Pentru că nu vorbim numai de obiectivele economice, vorbim aici de oameni, vorbim de copii care rămân marcați pe toată perioada.
Și sunt state ipocrite. Degeaba am votat noi aici sancțiuni, când statele din Uniunea Europeană au importat mai departe și au alimentat bugetul Rusiei cu bani și nu puțini.
Deci, doamnă comisară, eu cred că nu mai trebuie să discutăm decât atunci când veniți cu o propunere concretă. Sau ați crezut că domnul Trump face în 24 de ore pace? Iată că n-a făcut, s-a dus în Ucraina ca să pună mâna pe niște bogății acolo și pe niște zăcăminte.
Eu cred că avem responsabilitate, Uniunea Europeană, să spunem cetățenilor noștri ce putem să facem pentru încetarea războiului.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiama posėdžio pirmininke, gerbiama komisare, kolegos. Čia daug pasakyta teisingų žodžių apie tai, ką, kokius nusikaltimus daro Putinas ir jo agresyvus ir nusikalstamas režimas. Bet mano klausimas yra kitoks. Mano klausimas yra Europos šalių, valstybių ir vyriausybių Vadovų Tarybai. Ar iš tiesų galime ir toliau elgtis taip, kaip elgiamės? Yra šalių, kurios labai smarkiai padeda Ukrainai. Bet yra didelis skaičius šalių, kurių pagalba Ukrainai yra maža. Reikia kelti klausimą [dėl] solidaraus ir vieningo pagalbos dydžio Ukrainai. Reikia didesnio biudžeto ir Europos Sąjungos valanda dabar akivaizdi. Ukrainos žmonės, kaip niekas – aš ten visai neseniai buvau ir vėl važiuosiu, – kaip niekas laukia integracijos į Europos Sąjungą. Mūsų pažadai turi remtis konkrečiais namų darbais, kad mes tikrai paspartintumėm Ukrainos integraciją į Europos Sąjungą. Tai yra vienintelis realus taikos planas.
(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)
Marta Kos,Member of the Commission. – (start of speech off mic) … for the efforts to end the war through a comprehensive, just and sustainable peace and, of course, to ensure accountability. The diplomatic efforts to stop the war, as presented by the representative of the Council, are indeed essential to ending the ongoing suffering of the people to Ukraine. We join Ukraine and international partners, including the US, in calling for a full, unconditional ceasefire of at least 30 days.
Alongside this track, it is no less important to continue the work of ensuring accountability for war crimes. Justice must be rendered to the victims of Russian aggression and, in the long term, impunity must not be allowed to pave the way for future crimes.
It is not easy to talk about the accession process in Ukraine while the bombs are falling on the country. It is not easy to speak about the reconstruction of Ukraine when something that we already reconstructed is ruined in the next days. But the most difficult thing is to speak about the victims, about the children you have been speaking.
Therefore, dear Members of the Parliament, Mr Gahler, Mr Auštrevičius, Mr Lagodinsky and Mr Cramer, Ms Strack-Zimmermann, thank you for your personal stories – because every human has a personal story – and also thank you to Mr Kobosko, who said that human life is a supreme value. That’s why I’m proud that the European Union is supporting Ukraine. And that’s why for me, the people of Ukraine are already the winners of this war, even if the war has not ended yet.
Przewodnicząca. – Dziękuję, panie ministrze.
Zamykam debatę.
Głosowanie odbędzie się podczas następnej sesji miesięcznej.
21. Strengthening rural areas in the EU through cohesion policy (debate)
Denis Nesci,relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente esecutivo Fitto, oggi è con profondo senso di responsabilità e sincera emozione che mi rivolgo a voi per presentare la relazione sul rafforzamento delle zone rurali nell’Unione europea attraverso la politica di coesione.
Sono figlio di una terra che conosce bene le potenzialità ma anche le difficoltà del mondo rurale. È proprio da questa consapevolezza che nasce il lavoro che oggi vi presento. La relazione vuole essere un punto di partenza per un’azione concreta verso ciò che dovrebbe essere un obiettivo condiviso da tutti noi: portare le zone rurali a essere non più marginali, ma finalmente protagoniste di una strategia di sviluppo mirata.
Le zone rurali coprono l’80 % del territorio europeo e ospitano quasi un quarto della popolazione. Eppure, sembra che non si sia mai pensato di svilupparle in modo parallelo alle zone urbane. Da troppo tempo queste aree soffrono di isolamento, spopolamento, scarsa connettività, accesso limitato ai servizi essenziali, invecchiamento demografico e difficoltà occupazionali. Ma non sono terre perse, sono risorse preziose, scrigni di cultura, biodiversità, identità e, oggi più che mai, leve strategiche per nuovi modi di produrre energia e per la sicurezza alimentare.
Il file nasce da questa convinzione: rilanciare le zone rurali non è solo un atto di giustizia territoriale, è una scelta strategica per l’intera Unione. È strategico, infatti, voler fornire alle aree rurali strumenti propri sia in termini finanziari che amministrativi. A questo proposito, la creazione di infopoint dedicati al supporto delle PMI e dei comuni risulta oggi imprescindibile per ottimizzare l’utilizzo delle risorse disponibili e garantire un sostegno concreto alle regioni.
Abbiamo lavorato con l’obiettivo di dare una cornice chiara e strumenti efficaci per valorizzare le aree rurali come motori di sviluppo. Il testo propone una strategia integrata che unisca politiche agricole, coesione territoriale, innovazione digitale, accesso ai trasporti, formazione, servizi idrici efficienti e sanità. In particolare sulla sanità invitiamo la Commissione a integrare la sua strategia per la sanità digitale, misure specifiche per le zone identificate come rurali nell’ottica di fornire ai presidi sanitari del territorio un supporto concreto per l’aggiornamento delle tecnologie, e chiediamo di potenziare i servizi offerti da tali presidi.
Sottolineiamo inoltre il ruolo centrale dello sviluppo infrastrutturale per la crescita economica e sociale delle zone rurali, vista la necessità di sistemi di trasporto, in particolare quelli pubblici, che consentano collegamenti migliori e un migliore accesso ai servizi essenziali, ma anche la necessità di reti energetiche più efficienti e resilienti.
Vogliamo che vivere in una zona definita “rurale” non significhi avere meno opportunità. Questo significa investire in infrastrutture, sostenere le imprese rurali, promuovere il turismo sostenibile, rafforzare la resilienza dei territori, incentivare il ruolo delle donne e il ritorno dei giovani alla loro terra. Il cuore pulsante della proposta è uno: la dignità delle persone. Non possiamo accettare che vivere in un borgo o in una valle significhi essere cittadini di serie B. Ogni comunità rurale ha diritto a servizi, connettività, formazione e prospettive.
Il lavoro è frutto di un ascolto attento sui territori, attraverso gli incontri con gli agricoltori, gli amministratori locali, le associazioni, i giovani. Questo perché le politiche rurali devono partire dal basso, rispettare il principio di sussidiarietà, rafforzare l’identità e la responsabilità locale.
Sostenere le zone rurali non significa solo interpretare e ampliare il principio della politica di coesione, ma rappresenta un investimento concreto per il futuro dell’Europa. E poi è un segnale chiaro che rivolgiamo ai nostri cittadini: non vi abbiamo dimenticati. Ѐ soprattutto un messaggio di speranza per chi vuole restare e ancor di più un riconoscimento del diritto dei nostri giovani di restare nella loro terra e costruire lì il proprio futuro.
Ringrazio tutti coloro che hanno contribuito, in particolare i relatori ombra, gli advisor, i tecnici, per l’efficace collaborazione e invito quest’Aula a far propria questa visione perché centinaia di migliaia di comunità rurali che aspettano da tempo un segnale chiaro dall’Europa non hanno più il tempo di aspettare.
Raffaele Fitto,Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, first, I would like to thank rapporteur Nesci and all the shadow rapporteurs for this important and timely report.
I fully agree with your analysis. Rural areas are central to our European way of life, and they are essential for Europe’s competitiveness and resilience. I welcome the report’s recognition that cohesion policy plays a crucial role in strengthening rural areas.
Supporting rural areas is a high priority for the Commission. As rightly emphasised in the report, cohesion policy already delivers significant support in rural areas. This complements the rural development interventions provided by the common agricultural policy. Investment in broadband, transport, clean energy, small and medium enterprises and innovation, and in health, education and local infrastructure, enhances economic and social cohesion.
However, challenges like skills shortages, the digital divide, demographic decline and the limited access to essential services persist. As correctly underlined in the report, we need further efforts to provide our rural areas with adequate tools to overcome the considerable challenges they face, which have an increasing impact on regional competitiveness and social cohesion.
A particular priority for me is the right to stay – the right of every European to remain in the place they call home. This is also fundamental for young generations of farmers, which is one of the key challenges in our farming sector. The Commission committed to further promote generational renewal in the agricultural sector through a dedicated strategy later this year.
Several regions in the EU are facing the problem of depopulation. This has led to a sharp decline for their working-age population. Apart from the tools under cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy, social policies and social innovation can help address this. Through the Harnessing Talent Platform, we are also actively working with 82 regions, including 27 mainly rural regions, to develop local strategies that retain talent and allow for smart adjustments to demographic challenges.
In addition, the mid-term review of cohesion policy programmes puts the focus on several areas of key concern for rural areas, providing incentives and flexibilities for goals such as water resilience, housing, energy transition and greater competitiveness innovation.
For example, water resilience – we have seen regions facing water scarcity while others are affected by floods. Through the mid-term review, we propose changes to encourage investment in water resilience, including digitalisation of water infrastructure, and mitigation of drought and desertification impacts.
The mid-term review proposal will deliver a more responsive cohesion policy, aligned with today’s realities, and better addressing current and future challenges.
Earlier this year, Commissioner Hansen and I presented the new Vision for Agriculture and Food, strengthening the synergies between policies to help rural areas, updating our rural action plan and further developing rural proofing, as well as the Rural Pact.
With this in mind, the Commission collaborates with the agrifood sector, ensuring that the sector remains competitive, resilient, attractive for future generations, and profitable.
Finally, you highlighted in your report the need to simplify administrative procedures by reducing red tape for farmers and small rural businesses. Here, I am happy to point out that in May, the European Commission adopted the omnibus proposal on agriculture, responding to the need to simplify the policy.
To conclude, this report makes a valuable contribution to the future of rural areas. Collaboration is key. We need to work together. This requires action and partnership across all levels of governance to modernise, simplify and reinforce the cohesion policy, providing tailored solutions to the unique situation of every territory in Europe, with the rural regions at the heart of our efforts.
I now look forward to the debate and to hearing your views.
Cristina Guarda,relatrice per parere della commissione AGRI. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto vorrei ringraziare i colleghi con cui ho affrontato questo percorso sia nella commissione per l’agricoltura che nella commissione per lo sviluppo regionale, perché finalmente si parla di utilizzare la politica di coesione per sostenere davvero le aree rurali, non soltanto in agricoltura, ma anche per garantire servizi essenziali, opportunità per giovani, donne, genitori, o per investire nella transizione ecologica per difendere le piccole imprese dalla crisi climatica o progetti come le comunità energetiche, che restituiscono potere ai cittadini.
Ma attenzione all’ipocrisia: con una mano votiamo testi non legislativi che celebrano la coesione per le aree rurali, con l’altra sosteniamo modifiche legislative che rischiano di dirottare quegli stessi fondi verso difesa e grandi imprese. È una contraddizione che è grave, perché se è faticoso trovare i fondi per costruire una strategia di difesa comune, la soluzione non è incentivarne ben 27 nazionali usando gli unici fondi veri della politica sociale europea, perché le armi non combattono lo spopolamento.
La coesione deve aiutare le comunità, non industrie belliche con profitti record. E le regioni a rischio? I fondi di coesione devono garantire ai loro cittadini servizi sociali, medici e strutture sicure. Ma spostare risorse dalle aree rurali a produzioni militari, magari senza trasparenza, è un tradimento dello spirito della coesione. Troviamone altre di risorse. Domani voteremo una lucida proposta per il futuro dei fondi europei per le aree rurali. Troviamo il coraggio di essere coerenti anche nei prossimi atti.
Christian Doleschal,im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In wenigen Tagen wird die Europäische Kommission ihren Vorschlag für den neuen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen vorlegen. Jetzt ist der richtige Zeitpunkt, um mit unserem Initiativbericht zur Stärkung des ländlichen Raums ein klares Signal an die Kommission mit Blick auf den nächsten EU‑Haushalt zu senden. Denn eines ist klar: Wenn wir Europa zusammenhalten wollen, muss die Kohäsionspolitik ganz oben auf der Agenda stehen – finanziell und politisch. Sie ist unser stärkstes Instrument für gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse in der gesamten Union. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass unsere Politik darauf angelegt sein muss, dass die ländlichen Räume künftig Zukunftsräume in Europa werden. Ich bin dankbar, dass wir viele unserer Prioritäten in dem Bericht unterbringen konnten.
Ein Punkt, der mir besonders wichtig war, ist, dass wir Grenzregionen innerhalb der Europäischen Union gezielt unterstützen wollen. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass Europa gerade an seinen Binnengrenzen zusammenwächst; nicht in den Brüsseler Amtsstuben, sondern dort, wo das tägliche Leben stattfindet. Deshalb brauchen wir mehr Handlungsspielraum für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit – für Feinschmecker aber dennoch ein wichtiges Thema. Ich bin dankbar, dass wir positioniert haben, dass die europäischen Verbünde für territoriale Zusammenarbeit künftig mehr Eigenverantwortung bekommen sollen.
Zentralisierung? Ein klares Nein! Uns ist es wichtig, dass wir in der Kohäsionspolitik auch künftig den Regionen den entsprechenden Raum einräumen. Mehr Zentralismus heißt meist mehr Bürokratie, weniger Tempo und geringere Wirksamkeit.
Ich bin dankbar, dass es gelungen ist, dass wir auch das Wassermanagement besser verankern wollen, um Naturkatastrophen künftig vorzubeugen. Ein Punkt, den ich noch sehr wichtig finde, ist, dass es uns in diesem Bericht auch gelungen ist, dass wir beispielsweise auch das kulturelle Erbe Europas künftig mit europäischen Mitteln fördern wollen. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass wir beispielsweise Kirchen auch in den nächsten Jahren unterstützen müssen. Sie sind das kulturelle und christliche Fundament Europas.
Sabrina Repp,im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Exekutiv-Vizepräsident! Vor Kurzem war ich in Zislow, einem kleinen Ort mitten im ländlichen Raum von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Wunderschön gelegen, geprägt von Menschen, die ihr Zuhause lieben. Der Altersdurchschnitt ist hoch, junge Familien fehlen, und doch spürt man etwas Kostbares – Engagement, Ideen und Zusammenhalt. Der ländliche Raum ist lebendig. Nicht weil alles einfach ist, sondern weil Menschen füreinander einstehen und ihr Zuhause aktiv mitgestalten. Was es braucht, ist keine Mitleidsbekundung, sondern echte Unterstützung, denn dort, wo Menschen ihr Zuhause mit Herz und Hand gestalten, entsteht Gemeinschaft. Genau diesen Zusammenhalt müssen wir fördern.
Wir sprechen über ein Europa, das zusammenhält. Genau das ist das Ziel von Kohäsionspolitik. Doch Zusammenhalt gelingt nur, wenn wir alle Regionen mitdenken. Ländliche Räume sind keine Randnotiz. Sie sind Lebensraum für Millionen von Menschen. Sie stehen für Engagement, Innovation und Gemeinschaft. Wenn wir sie vernachlässigen, gerät Europa aus dem Gleichgewicht – politisch, wirtschaftlich und sozial. Es ist ein Fehler, dass die Kommission mit ihren Plänen rund um die Halbzeitbilanz und den Plänen für den neuen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen zunehmend den Fokus auf industrielle Zentren setzt und damit ganze Regionen ins Abseits stellt.
Nicht mit uns! Wir stehen für Teilhabe statt Abhängigkeit, für Chancen statt Abwanderung, für das Recht, in der eigenen Herkunftsregion zu leben, mit guter Infrastruktur, fairen Bildungschancen und einer starken öffentlichen Daseinsvorsorge. Wir stehen für ein Europa, das niemanden zurücklässt.
André Rougé,au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, permettez-moi de saluer l’excellent rapport de notre collègue Nesci. Alors qu’il couvre les 4/5 de l’Union européenne, le monde rural demeure défavorisé, bénéficiant de trois fois moins de financements que les zones urbaines.
Il assure pourtant des fonctions essentielles: l’aménagement du territoire, la sécurité alimentaire et la transmission aux générations montantes de notre patrimoine historique, culturel et de biodiversité. Le rapport Nesci dresse le bilan chiffré de cette relégation du monde rural en Europe. Un monde où les jeunes se font rares, un monde démédicalisé, numériquement retardé, dépourvu de logements, d’écoles, de commerces et de lieux de vie.
Avec un tel bilan en Europe continentale, imaginez une seconde ce que veut dire être rural dans une région ultrapériphérique de la France d’outre-mer. C’est être périphérisé dans ce qui est déjà l’ultrapériphérie, c’est la double peine. Et nous ne pouvons nous y résoudre.
Je m’associe d’autant plus aux propositions formulées dans ce rapport qu’il porte une réelle attention aux outre-mer. Nos propositions spécifiquement ultramarines sur la couverture de très haut débit des zones rurales, la diversification des cultures pour l’autosuffisance alimentaire et le développement des petites entreprises rurales ont été retenues, et je vous en remercie Monsieur le rapporteur.
Le chemin est encore long, mais les équilibres politiques au sein de cette Assemblée nous permettent aujourd’hui de peser sur les grands choix de l’Union européenne. C’est ce que nous allons continuer à faire inlassablement pour nos peuples et nos nations, en Europe continentale comme dans les outre-mer.
Francesco Torselli,a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, quando parliamo di politiche di coesione pensiamo giustamente al rilancio delle aree interne e alla difesa delle diversità europee.
Ma permettetemi una riflessione. Chi andrà a ripopolare queste aree? Chi vi farà crescere e studiare i propri figli? Chi investirà i propri capitali se non vi sarà una connessione digitale? Oggi è centrale nello sviluppo della vita in Europa avere una connessione performante. Finalmente in quest’Aula, grazie al collega Nesci, si parla di rilancio delle aree rurali, attraverso la chiusura del gap digitale, attraverso la garanzia di accesso a Internet veloce, alla rete 5G, di istruzione online, di realizzazione di infrastrutture moderne e performanti.
Ma oggi il Parlamento, grazie a Lei, ha fatto addirittura di più, è andato oltre, ha lanciato una sfida, si è rivolto ai giovani e ha parlato di digitalizzazione. Questa è la sfida delle sfide, e chi si opporrà a questa sfida si opporrà alla più bella rivoluzione culturale che noi potremo fare quest’anno in quest’Aula.
Ciaran Mullooly,on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I want to commend the rapporteur for the excellent work. As an Irish MEP representing a large rural constituency, this report highlights many of the structural challenges faced by these communities. However, one of the most pressing issues of our time for our rural communities is access to housing, Commissioner.
Madam President, a key challenge in solving this rural housing crisis is addressing the lack of infrastructure. Without proper investment in water, broadband and transport links, even the most basic planning permission becomes unattainable. This has had a direct effect on young people who want to stay in our communities, but cannot because of infrastructure. Supporting this kind of generational continuity and ensuring we have adequate support through cohesion policy is essential, Commissioner, in keeping rural life.
If reports are to be believed, one month from today the European Commission will come forward with the multiannual financial framework. This is a crucial time for our regions, Commissioner. If we do not act now, I fear for the viability in the future. Let’s keep the money for regions, not for defence, Commissioner.
Valentina Palmisano,a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario Fitto, innanzitutto permettetemi di ringraziare il collega, il rapporteur Nesci, per il lavoro fatto, e tutti i relatori ombra con i quali è stato davvero un piacere lavorare.
Oggi discutiamo un provvedimento che tocca da vicino le nostre comunità, i nostri territori. Le aree rurali non sono periferie da assistere, sono una parte essenziale dell’Europa. Eppure, da troppo tempo vengono sistematicamente ignorate. Rafforzarle non è un gesto simbolico. È una questione di giustizia democratica, vuol dire garantire diritti, servizi, opportunità a chi ha scelto di restare e vivere lì. E noi dobbiamo ringraziare queste persone ed aiutarle.
Con i nostri emendamenti abbiamo inserito nel testo temi cruciali, a noi molto cari. La lotta alla crisi idrica e alla desertificazione, che sta mettendo in ginocchio i nostri agricoltori e gli allevatori, minacciando anche la sicurezza alimentare. Abbiamo tutti davanti agli occhi le immagini degli invasi prosciugati, ad esempio in Puglia o in Sicilia. Il diritto a ricevere cure di qualità nel proprio territorio, con il rafforzamento magari del sistema dei medici di base e la creazione della figura dell’infermiere di comunità. Il recupero di immobili in disuso in aree a rischio spopolamento per creare magari spazi di co-housing e di co-working, e magari poter attrarre i lavoratori che, appunto, lavorano da remoto. La tutela delle lingue minoritarie come patrimonio culturale europeo. In Salento, ad esempio, in molte comunità si parla il griko, così come in Calabria, come saprete bene, si parla l’arbëreshë. Si tratta di un’eredità culturale importante che rischiamo di perdere se non la tuteliamo e la valorizziamo. Oppure la creazione di un Fondo europeo per l’imprenditoria rurale giovanile e gli aiuti ai giovani per garantire la loro autonomia abitativa, invece di essere costretti a vivere con i propri genitori.
Ecco, queste sono le priorità per i cittadini europei, non quelle di aumentare investimenti in armi, mentre le nostre aree interne continuano a perdere servizi, persone e prospettive. È una scelta politica. Noi siamo dall’altra parte. Io credo ancora in una politica che sia a servizio dei cittadini e continuerò a battermi per questo.
Irmhild Boßdorf,im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Den Einkaufsladen um die Ecke, eine gute Kinderbetreuung, Zwergschulen, großzügiger Wohnraum und Erwerbsmöglichkeiten in erreichbarer Nähe: Das ist es, was Familien in Europa brauchen und wollen. In Deutschland erleben wir bereits seit 2017 eine neue Lust aufs Land. Immer mehr Familien zieht es in Kleinstädte und Dörfer. Doch der ländliche Raum muss entsprechend entwickelt sein, damit er eine Zukunft hat.
270 Milliarden Euro werden in den nächsten vier Jahren in unsere ländlichen Regionen fließen. Diese Gelder werden nicht mehr, wie in der letzten Legislaturperiode, für den Kampf gegen Rechts missbraucht. Diese Gelder werden endlich für gute Lebensbedingungen ausgegeben. Mit diesen Geldern wird es uns gelingen, dass es nicht nur das vielbeschworene right to stay, sondern vor allem die possibility to stay gibt. Damit geben wir jungen Familien die Möglichkeit auf ein gutes Leben. Dann entsteht aus Landlust eine neue Heimat.
Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Mr Nesci, I would like to start with grazie mille to you for your work and dedicating so much of your focus to rural areas. I don’t need a written speech to talk about rural areas, because I am proud to come from this kind of society.
In rural areas, your neighbour is more than your family, and this is something that we should cherish and enjoy in Europe. And the only thing that keeps us away from seeing rural areas as a demographic desert is the cohesion policy. The people who live in those areas don’t need any Amsterdam level of achievements or Paris level of tourism. Very simple things will keep them in the places that they love: a good road (that is not taking innocent human lives in car accidents), clean water, good education and health care. And that’s it.
Our history shows that during the crisis, people go exactly to those havens in the rural areas. And the first and most important thing that we can do and deliver here from the European Parliament, at least not to make those people lives more complicated than it is at the moment with our legislation – make our regulations easy to read as a newspaper. When we deliver funding for those regions it should be clear what we require and what we provide. So I think we can rely on those people to keep Europe up and running, as they do so far.
Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, quien nace hoy en una zona rural de la Unión Europea está condenado a emigrar. Nuestras zonas rurales se despueblan y cualquier ciudadano debería tener el derecho a quedarse donde nació. Las zonas rurales representan el 83 % del territorio de la Unión, pero albergan solo un tercio de la población, y su renta media es solo el 87,5 % de la renta media de las zonas urbanas.
Las zonas rurales tienen grandes desafíos por delante: mejorar su movilidad y conectividad, garantizar menores tasas de desempleo, incrementar los servicios básicos y las oportunidades de desarrollo económico… Si no actuamos, ponemos en peligro la diversidad europea, así como el progreso social y económico.
La despoblación rural y la desigualdad atentan contra los principios de la política de cohesión, que deben inspirar el trabajo de las instituciones comunitarias. La política de cohesión más allá de 2027 debe ser ambiciosa y aumentar la descentralización, fomentando un crecimiento equilibrado, con más recursos en sectores estratégicos, emprendimiento rural, turismo rural, políticas que apoyen la transición energética, y apoyando especialmente a las mujeres y a los jóvenes para frenar el declive demográfico.
Si centralizamos la política de cohesión, estaremos matando definitivamente nuestras zonas rurales. Es nuestra responsabilidad: garanticemos el derecho de todos y todas a quedarse donde han nacido.
Rody Tolassy (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, aujourd’hui, nous examinons un rapport crucial: le renforcement des zones rurales grâce à la politique de cohésion. Ces territoires, qui couvrent 91 % du territoire de l’Union européenne, abritent plus de la moitié de notre population.
En France, 11 millions de nos concitoyens vivent en milieu rural, y compris dans les régions ultrapériphériques, trop souvent oubliées dans cette dynamique européenne. Pourtant, ces territoires sont des trésors, des trésors de savoir-faire, de résilience, de lien social, mais aussi parfois des terres abandonnées, toujours des terres de lutte.
Je veux ici rappeler l’exemple du programme «Avenir montagnes». Il démontre qu’avec une volonté politique affirmée, un accompagnement humain de proximité et des leviers financiers adaptés, nous pouvons transformer la donne. Mobilité durable, ingénierie locale, infrastructures rénovées, tourisme repensé: ce modèle a inspiré une politique de cohésion véritablement solidaire, en particulier à destination des outre-mer.
Dans nos territoires, la ruralité représente des spécificités. Contrairement à d’autres régions, la population y reste nombreuse, la campagne ne se dépeuple pas. Elle a donc besoin non pas de reconquête, mais de plus de connectivité, de services publics et d’investissements ciblés. Alors ne laissons plus nos campagnes, nos montagnes, nos îles, nos ruralités au bord du chemin européen, renforçons les zones rurales, c’est tenir la promesse de l’Union, celle de l’égalité des chances, partout, pour tous.
Waldemar Buda (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zrównoważony rozwój całej Europy i wszystkich krajów to jest absolutny priorytet. Gratuluję sprawozdania, ponieważ ono rzeczywiście stawia diagnozę, które są dla nas dość oczywiste, to znaczy wyludnianie, niedoinwestowanie, brak jakościowych usług publicznych – to jest to, co znamy na co dzień. I Szanowni Państwo, w dobie tego rodzaju diagnoz powinno być tutaj pytanie, ile więcej przekażemy na politykę spójności, ile więcej przekażemy na wspólną politykę rolną, żeby jednak te problemy minimalizować. I o to w tej sytuacji dzisiaj tutaj stoimy na tej sali, kiedy za chwilkę decydowały się będą decyzje o ograniczeniu wspólnej polityki rolnej i ograniczeniu polityk regionalnych w nowej perspektywie finansowej. Czyli diagnozujemy dobrze, natomiast za chwilkę chcemy postąpić, co pogłębi te problemy, które diagnozujemy w tym sprawozdaniu.
My w Polsce w latach 2021-2023 ponad 100 mld zł przekazaliśmy, można powiedzieć, taką lokalną polityką spójności, programem strategicznym na rzecz właśnie obszarów małych miast, małych miejscowości. Ten program został zablokowany w poprzednim roku i widzimy już tego skutki. Widzimy te problemy, że małe miejscowości znów stają się nieatrakcyjne, znów nie stanowią pewnego rodzaju alternatywy dla dużych miast. Więc zastanówmy się w tej nowej perspektywie, czy rzeczywiście te plany, o których słyszymy, ograniczania środków na WPR, ograniczenia na politykę spójności doprowadzą do jeszcze głębszych podziałów, jeszcze większych trudności w porównaniu i życiu w małych miejscowościach.
Christine Singer (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Exekutiv-Vizepräsident! Die Kohäsionspolitik ist ein zentrales Instrument, um regionale Unterschiede auszugleichen – auch bei uns in Bayern –, etwa in strukturschwächeren oder benachteiligten ländlichen Gebieten. Gerade dort braucht es gezielte Impulse, damit die Menschen in ihrer Heimat bleiben und die Zukunft gestalten können. Dazu gehören Investitionen in Infrastruktur, medizinische Versorgung, Digitalisierung und Bildung, und zwar dort, wo sie besonders fehlen.
Als Abgeordnete vom Land ist es mir ein Herzensanliegen, den ländlichen Raum in seiner ganzen Vielfalt sichtbar zu machen, denn Kohäsionspolitik darf nicht an der Stadtgrenze enden. Wo andere nur Wiesen, Wälder und Dörfer sehen, wird Tag für Tag gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt gelebt. Aber was nützen Förderprogramme, wenn Kommunen an komplizierten Antragsverfahren und hohen Eigenmittelanforderungen scheitern? Wir müssen Bürokratie abbauen, Verfahren vereinfachen und die Menschen vor Ort stärker einbinden. So wird Kohäsionspolitik wirklich zum Motor für gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse in der Stadt und auf dem Land.
Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Doamnă președintă, aș începe acest discurs prin a întreba ceva care mi se pare extrem de fundamental. Oare noi, aici, în acest Parlament, de câte ori vorbim modelăm realmente realitățile? Pentru că am senzația, ca membru al celor două comisii, pentru transport și turism și pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală, că de un an de zile aproape de când vorbesc în aceste comisii nu am rezolvat nimic. Și mă simt neputincios și nu-mi place.
Pentru că România, oameni buni, dacă știți cumva, este țara cu cel mai mare deficit din Uniunea Europeană și, ca atare, cei care au condus-o până acum și care o conduc în continuare, deși nu neapărat i-a votat poporul, vor să rezolve acest deficit prin creșteri de TVA, prin creșteri de accize la combustibil, ceea ce va lichida turismul rural.
Totodată, de 17 ani nu am reușit să facem autostrăzi. Oare de ce? Poate reușim acum cu mobilitatea militară. Și lucrurile acestea se perpetuează încontinuu și nu ajungem niciunde. Practic, despre ce politică de coeziune vorbim noi? Cum va acționa această politică de coeziune într-o țară aflată sub deficit, care nu reușește să-și rezolve problemele? Realmente acești bani vor ajunge la oamenii de acasă, de acolo, din mediul rural, unde nici măcar șosele nu sunt sau unde au atâtea și atâtea probleme?
Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Rezolucja w sprawie wzmocnienia obszarów wiejskich – niezwykle ważna: ogranicza biurokrację dla rolników, wspiera małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, kładzie nacisk na skrócenie łańcucha dostaw oraz wzmacnia bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe. Dodatkowo rezolucja wspiera model rolnictwa rodzinnego oraz małe i średnie gospodarstwa, które są fundamentem między innymi polskiej wsi.
To są kluczowe zapisy, ale nie jedyne, nad którymi pracowałam jako kontrsprawozdawca. Rezolucja wzywa państwa członkowskie do pełnego wykorzystania wszystkich możliwych środków – zarówno finansowych, pomocowych, jak i administracyjnych – aby wzmocnić obszary wiejskie, zwłaszcza regiony graniczące z Rosją, Białorusią i Ukrainą, które wzięły na siebie największy ciężar wojny za wschodnią granicą Unii Europejskiej.
Proszę wszystkich europosłów, a w szczególności europosłów z Polski, aby ponad podziałami poparli w głosowaniu tę rezolucję, na którą czekają wszyscy rolnicy.
Nora Mebarek (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, 137 millions d’Européens vivent dans des zones rurales. Une grande part de notre réussite collective dans les transitions verte, numérique et démographique dépend de ces territoires qui couvrent plus de 80 % de notre continent. C’est ce que le rapporteur – et je le félicite – nous a apporté avec ce rapport, cette vision sur les zones rurales.
Dès lors, garantir à chaque citoyen européen la liberté de vivre et de rester là où il le souhaite devient un enjeu stratégique pour l’avenir de l’Union. Ce droit à rester où on le souhaite doit maintenant se traduire concrètement par un meilleur accès à la santé, à l’éducation, aux transports, au logement et à une vie digne. Car là où les services publics disparaissent, là où le décrochage socio-économique s’enracine, le sentiment de déclassement prospère et, avec lui, le désespoir.
C’est pourquoi la politique de cohésion et sa méthode, fondée sur le partenariat avec les autorités locales, doivent rester un pilier fort du prochain cadre budgétaire européen. Cette politique est notre meilleure alliée pour lutter contre les inégalités territoriales et soutenir l’innovation rurale. Préserver le droit de chacun de rester là où il le souhaite et de vivre dignement, c’est protéger l’unité de notre Europe.
France Jamet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, on pourrait considérer que ce rapport sur le renforcement des zones rurales dans l’Union européenne grâce à la politique de cohésion contient de bonnes mesures. C’est vrai.
Le problème, c’est que la Commission européenne dégrade et détruit tout ce qu’elle touche. Que ce soit sur terre, dans nos campagnes, en mer, vis-à-vis de nos paysans, de nos pêcheurs ou de la ruralité dans son ensemble, ce sont toujours les mêmes erreurs, les mêmes obsessions et le même mépris: interdiction de circuler, de travailler, de pêcher, de produire, de cultiver, de louer, de vendre. Ce qui est impardonnable, c’est qu’elle s’acharne toujours sur les mêmes et qu’elle met systématiquement à l’amende et à contribution les plus précaires.
Sous prétexte de faire le bonheur de ces populations malgré elles, l’idéologie globaliste et éco-fanatique de Bruxelles uniformise tout, détruit nos souverainetés, nos traditions et notre identité. C’est évident, l’Union européenne n’aime pas le peuple. Elle n’aime pas son histoire, elle n’aime pas sa civilisation.
Alors, si la Commission européenne veut revivifier nos campagnes, au lieu d’imposer et de renforcer son modèle qui nous a quand même menés là où nous en sommes, qu’elle respecte nos campagnes, ses habitants, et qu’elle quitte les lieux, qu’elle nous laisse vivre ici, chez nous, en toute liberté.
Antonella Sberna (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, coesione, infrastrutture, giovani, semplificazione, diritto a restare: sono queste alcune delle parole che attraversano il cuore di questa relazione e ne sintetizzano lo spirito. Parole che non sono slogan, ma richieste reali che arrivano con forza da chi vive e amministra le realtà locali. Territori che parlano con la voce degli amministratori, delle famiglie, degli imprenditori e dei giovani che vogliono costruirsi un futuro senza essere costretti ad abbandonare le proprie radici. Aree che chiedono un’Europa più vicina, più concreta, più giusta.
Questa relazione ha il merito di portare al Parlamento europeo quelle istanze che abbiamo raccolto in mesi di ascolto e confronto diretto. Per questo desidero ringraziare l’onorevole Nesci per l’eccellente lavoro svolto, con un approccio partecipato e un’attenzione reale ai bisogni delle comunità e alla dignità, come ha detto prima, delle aree rurali e di chi le popola.
Se vogliamo costruire politiche europee efficaci, dobbiamo partire dal dialogo sincero con le aree interne, con i piccoli centri, con quelle zone spesso lasciate ai margini, ma che costruiscono l’anima dell’Europa. E l’attenzione che la Commissione sta dedicando a questo tema è massima e l’apprezziamo molto. È lì, nei borghi, nelle campagne, nei cuori e nei luoghi meno centrali che l’Europa può ritrovare se stessa e il senso della sua missione originaria.
Branislav Ondruš (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, kolegyne a kolegovia, ak má mať existencia Európskej únie zmysel, nesmieme siahnuť na finančnú podporu regiónom, ktoré čelia nedostatku pracovných príležitostí, chýbajúcim investíciám do modernizácie a rozvoja, hrozbám pre životné prostredie, sociálnej nerovnosti a odlivu obyvateľov. Fondy pre naše regióny sa nesmú stať obeťou európskej militarizácie a pretekov v zbrojení ani osobných záujmov prospechárov. Spravodlivý a udržateľný rozvoj regiónov neprinesie masívna výroba zbraní a munície, ale podpora poľnohospodárov, živnostníkov v lesnom hospodárstve, remeselníkov a malých a stredných podnikov v službách či cestovnom ruchu. Financie najmä sociálnym podnikom a družstvám, nie nadnárodným zbrojársky korporáciám, pretože pre udržateľný rozvoj potrebujeme udržať vytvorené hodnoty v regiónoch. Nech firmy investujú peniaze tam, kde ich zarobili. Preto použitie eurofondov navrhujem podmieniť konkrétnymi sociálnymi a ekologickými kritériami, aby z nich mala prospech celá spoločnosť a nie špekulanti, korupčníci a korporácie. Ďakujem.
Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Májusban a Tisza közössége egymillió lépést tett meg Budapesttől Nagyváradig. Az út során megtapasztaltuk, milyen nagy a szakadék Magyarország vidéki régiói között. Nő az elvándorlás, az elnéptelenedés, a fiatal, képzett munkaerő hiánya pedig óriási versenyképességi hátrányt okoz. Eközben hiányoznak az uniós ezermilliárdok, amelyekből normális közlekedési kapcsolatokat lehetne létesíteni.
A kohéziós politika egyik legfőbb célja a vidékfejlesztés, hogy valóban senkit se hagyjunk hátra. Elégedett vagyok, hogy a jelentés felhívja a figyelmet a demográfiai kihívások és a regionális egyenlőtlenségek leküzdésére, a sérülékeny társadalmi csoportokra, különösen a nőkre, a fogyatékossággal élőkre.
Külön öröm magyar szempontból – köszönöm a jelentéstevő munkáját–, hogy kihangsúlyozza több közvetlen uniós forrást szükséges biztosítani helyi és regionális önkormányzatok számára.
Sajnos a magyar kormány magára hagyja a vidéket. A Tisza viszont kormányra kerülése után haza fogja hozni az embereknek járó uniós forrásokat, és vidéken is valódi fejlesztéseket fog megvalósítani.
André Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o relatório que hoje discutimos propõe respostas há muito reclamadas para os desafios estruturais das zonas rurais. Mais investimento em serviços públicos, infraestruturas, digitalização, apoio ao emprego e às comunidades locais. Sublinha também a urgência de travar o despovoamento, reforçar o papel das mulheres e dos jovens, apoiar as PME e garantir que as zonas rurais não ficam para trás na transição energética.
Mas não tenhamos ilusões; sem uma política de desenvolvimento rural mais ambiciosa, articulada e simples, nenhuma destas respostas será concretizada.
Há quem queira acabar com o segundo pilar da PAC; aqui dizemos, claramente, não. Ele deve antes ser reforçado e mais bem articulado com uma política de coesão verdadeiramente descentralizada e ancorada nos territórios e nas suas comunidades.
É preciso ação e ambição, e estas têm de estar refletidas no próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual. Cabe agora à Comissão, aos Estados‑Membros e a este Parlamento assumir a responsabilidade que têm perante o mundo rural e não votá-lo ao abandono.
(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)
João Oliveira (The Left),Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Deputado André Rodrigues, o senhor deputado fez referência a vários aspetos importantes deste relatório, mas queria questioná-lo sobre outros aspetos que vão no sentido negativo.
Em primeiro lugar, queria perguntar-lhe como é que se apoia o desenvolvimento das zonas rurais pondo este foco no militarismo – que também neste relatório acaba por aparecer com a referência à importância da mobilidade militar; veja-se bem: a mobilidade militar como um aspeto relevante do ponto de vista da coesão e da resposta às necessidades das zonas rurais!
E, por outro lado, queria saber também como é que se conjugam todos estes objetivos com políticas setoriais nos transportes e na energia, que depois vão em sentido exatamente contrário, como acontece, por exemplo, com as redes transeuropeias de transportes, que deixam completamente de lado a mobilidade das populações nas zonas rurais.
Como é que isto tudo se pode compatibilizar, Senhor Deputado?
Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, l’Union européenne est vraiment une girouette qui change d’avis tout le temps. D’un côté, il est question d’intégrer la PAC, principal fonds en faveur des campagnes, dans le budget global de l’Union européenne, ce qui le fera diminuer. De l’autre, nous discutons aujourd’hui de l’utilisation des fonds de cohésion, déjà très sollicités, en faveur des zones rurales. Avec des signaux aussi contradictoires, comment avoir confiance?
Depuis des années, les politiques européennes se concentrent sur les métropoles et les zones urbaines, laissant nos campagnes se vider et nos exploitations disparaître. Ce n’est finalement qu’au moment où les citadins redécouvrent les campagnes, au détour du télétravail, qu’on s’intéresse à nouveau à ces zones.
Vous prétendez aujourd’hui vouloir nous aider. Comment pouvons-nous soutenir les agriculteurs et les services de proximité, car ce sont eux qui font vivre ces zones? Cessez de nous imposer votre idéologie verte qui nous prive de nos moyens de transport. Redevenez lucides et apprenez à nous respecter.
Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Gerbiama pirmininke, komisare. Eurostato duomenimis, iki 2050 m. Lietuvoje kaimo gyventojų skaičius sumažės beveik penkiasdešimt procentų. Todėl šiandien, kaip niekada, aktualu kalbėti apie teisę pasilikti regionuose. Matant demografines problemas, svarbu suvokti švietimo sistemos regionuose išsaugojimo svarbą. Juolab, kad jau daug investuota į regionų švietimo įstaigų atnaujinimą, mokytojų rengimą. Kita svarbi sritis – tai sveikatos paslaugų užtikrinimas, nes senstant visuomenei tai tampa vis didesniu iššūkiu. Suprantama, kad pirminė sveikatos priežiūra turi būti kaip galima arčiau gyventojų. Tačiau ir kitos paslaugos, tokios kaip onkologinės patikros programos, turėtų būti kaip galima labiau pasiekiamos. Būtina didinti mobilių patikros priemonių prieinamumą, vystyti telemediciną, nes šiuo metu regionų gyventojams dėl paslaugų netolygumų vėliau nustatoma ligos diagnozė, sunkiau pasiekti specializuotą pagalbą. Regionai dažniau susiduria su medikų trūkumu, todėl labai svarbu, kad regionams būtų skiriama pakankamai dėmesio Europos sveikatos programoje, Europos vėžio įveikimo plane ir kitose priemonėse.
Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Na początku chciałbym podkreślić, że polityka spójności już od wielu, wielu, wielu lat wspiera obszary wiejskie na terenie Unii Europejskiej. Ale cieszę się, że dzisiaj możemy rozmawiać o tym, w jaki sposób polityka spójności może w sposób bardziej skuteczny, szybszy i na większym poziomie wspierać rozwiązywanie tych problemów, które dotyczą obszarów wiejskich, takich jak wykluczenie komunikacyjne, poprawa infrastruktury drogowej, edukacyjnej, zdrowotnej, kulturalnej, wsparcie dla rozwoju przedsiębiorczości, a przede wszystkim ten problem, z którym borykamy się już od wielu lat, w wielu miejscach Unii Europejskiej na obszarach wiejskich, mianowicie z wyludnieniem.
Jeśli chcemy, aby polityka spójności rzeczywiście rozwiązała te problemy, musimy podjąć jedną zasadniczą decyzję, mianowicie zaufać ludziom, tym, którzy tam dzisiaj mieszkają, i tym, którzy podejmują decyzje i wiedzą najlepiej, jakie są oczekiwania i potrzeby społeczne. To oni na dole, tam w swoich samorządach lokalnych, w swoich małych ojczyznach wiedzą najlepiej, na co powinni wydać te pieniądze. Dajmy im taką możliwość. Pierwszy raz w historii Unii Europejskiej. Panie Przewodniczący, cieszę się, że Pan rozumie te problemy. Dajmy im możliwość zdecydowania, na co chcą wydać te pieniądze. Które problemy w pierwszej kolejności chcą rozwiązać. Oni się odwdzięczą, odwdzięczą się pięknymi projektami, odwdzięczą się wspaniałymi zadaniami, które zostaną zrealizowane za środki europejskie, którymi my wszyscy, także Pan Komisarz, Pan Przewodniczący, będzie mógł się chwalić. Zaufajmy ludziom. Dajmy im szansę w końcu podjąć samodzielną decyzję, w jaki sposób chcą wydać te pieniądze, na które sami pracują i wypracowują, a które wpływają do wspólnego budżetu Unii Europejskiej.
Gerald Hauser (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, geschätzter Herr Exekutiv-Vizepräsident! Jeder wird den ländlichen Raum stärken wollen. Nur, ein Teilaspekt: Was machen wir im ländlichen Raum ohne Landwirte? Die Kohäsionspolitik hat in dieser Sache komplett versagt. Ich bin aus Österreich, aus Tirol. Nur ein Beispiel dazu: Im Jahr 2000 haben die Bauern für einen Liter Milch in etwa 0,34 Euro bekommen. Jetzt bekommen sie zwischen 0,40 und 0,55 Euro, etwas mehr, aber in Relation zu 2000 inflationsbereinigt wesentlich weniger. Die Erlöse gehen massiv zurück. Auf der anderen Seite steigen die Kosten, die Energiekosten, verursacht durch die Politik der Europäischen Union. Die Arbeitskräfte werden teurer, die Futtermittel werden teurer. Das heißt, die Erträge gehen massiv zurück. Was passiert? Dass so wie in Österreich täglich acht Landwirte zusperren. Zur Statistik: Im Jahr 2000 hatten wir in Österreich 18 000 landwirtschaftliche Betriebe, im Jahr 2000 nur mehr 14 000 – minus 22 Prozent. Täglich sperren acht Betriebe zu. Und Ihre Politik, geschätzter Herr Kommissar, wird daran nichts ändern.
Wir müssen endlich aufhören, gegen die Menschen im ländlichen Raum, auch gegen die Landwirte, zu arbeiten. Mercosur muss verhindert werden. Der Green Deal ist das nächste, was den Bauern extreme Probleme macht, und die aufgeblähte Verwaltung ist mittlerweile unerträglich. Das ganze Geld, das Sie über die Kohäsionspolitik in die Regionen geben wollen, kommt in die falschen Hände und kommt nicht dort an, wo es ankommen muss. Leider werden die ländlichen Gebiete und auch die Landwirte weiterhin verlieren.
(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)
Sabrina Repp (S&D),Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ihre Darstellung und der Fokus auf die Landwirte verkennt das Zusammennehmen. Es ist kein Ausspielen von Landwirtinnen und Landwirten und dem ländlichen Raum. Das ist der Fehler, der in den letzten Jahren passiert ist. Wir müssen beide zusammennehmen, um tatsächliche Zukunftsperspektiven für den ländlichen Raum zu schaffen. Wie wollen Sie es gewährleisten, wenn nur das eine fokussiert wird und Sie gar vorwerfen, dass die Kohäsionsmittel in die falschen Hände geraten? Im ländlichen Raum gibt es zahlreiche Menschen, die sich jeden Tag mit Engagement für Projekte einsetzen, für Bürgerhäuser, für Begegnung. Sie sagen, das sind die falschen Hände? Da geht irgendetwas nicht zusammen. Sie spielen verschiedene Menschen im ländlichen Raum gegeneinander aus. Eigentlich muss der ländliche Raum an einem Strang ziehen und den Zusammenhalt stärken. Das ist wichtig. Wie wollen Sie das erreichen, wenn Sie die Menschen im ländlichen Raum so gegeneinander ausspielen?
Gerald Hauser (PfE),Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ja, das ist das übliche linke Totschlagargument, das daherkommt mit dem Gegeneinander-Ausspielen. Wenn Sie mir zugehört hätten, hätten Sie bemerkt, dass ich mich in den eineinhalb Minuten, die ich Zeit hatte, intensiv für die Landwirte, für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern einsetze. Der ländliche Raum braucht die Bauern, weil sie die Erhalter unserer Kulturlandschaft, unserer Tradition sind, und wenn uns die Bauern immer mehr verloren gehen, dann verödet der ländliche Raum. Das ist die Basis, auf der wir aufbauen müssen. Das heißt, wir müssen zuerst einmal schauen, dass natürlich auch die Landwirte am Leben erhalten werden und Rahmenbedingungen haben, mit denen sie wirtschaften können. Derzeit ist es ihnen nicht möglich, deswegen sperren in Österreich täglich acht Landwirte zu. Das ist eine Entwicklung, die desaströs ist und die wir aufhalten wollen.
Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente, a União Europeia é muito mais do que as suas capitais, e é por não percebermos isto que estamos a perder muitos defensores do projeto europeu.
As áreas rurais representam mais de 80 % do território da União Europeia e são a casa de cerca de 25 % dos europeus e de 33 % dos portugueses. Isto indica que a falta de condições leva muitos dos nossos jovens a migrar para as grandes cidades, muitas vezes ficando nas suas periferias sem cumprirem com os seus sonhos.
O despovoamento, o envelhecimento da população, a escassez de oportunidades económicas e sociais e os rendimentos significativamente inferiores aos das zonas urbanas comprometem a coesão da União.
Precisamos, portanto, de uma política de coesão mais robusta, flexível, multinível e simplificada, centrada na promoção da igualdade territorial e no combate às assimetrias regionais.
Para cumprir o direito a ficar, é fundamental termos as infraestruturas e a conectividade necessárias, as acessibilidades adequadas –– no caso das regiões ultraperiféricas, através de um POSEI Transportes –– e um acesso, com dignidade, à educação e a cuidados de saúde.
É também por isto que a política de coesão é um instrumento essencial para responder aos desafios específicos destas regiões. E agradeço os seus esforços, Senhor Vice-Presidente, para a salvar.
Não há coesão sem uma Europa integralmente desenvolvida e territorialmente justa. E termino: as zonas rurais têm de ser reconhecidas como de facto são, ou seja, territórios estratégicos para a segurança alimentar, a produção agrícola, a transição energétic e a sustentabilidade ambiental e intervenientes centrais no futuro na União Europeia.
Mélanie Disdier (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, pendant des décennies, la Commission européenne n’a fait que jouer le jeu du libéralisme à outrance et de la mondialisation effrénée. Cette politique désastreuse a d’abord eu comme effet de créer une fracture importante entre les zones urbaines riches, connectées au monde, et les zones rurales, parfois enclavées et beaucoup plus fragiles économiquement. Pourtant, les zones rurales, cœur battant de notre identité, couvrent 83 % du territoire européen et un quart de sa population.
La politique de cohésion de l’Union européenne doit cesser d’être une coquille vide et devenir le fer de lance d’un sursaut rural et d’un retour de la puissance agricole et industrielle. Nos campagnes ne sont pas seulement des terres agricoles, elles garantissent notre souveraineté alimentaire et sont les gardiennes de notre patrimoine millénaire que Bruxelles méprise et cherche à effacer.
Nous exigeons des investissements massifs dans l’agriculture, le transport, l’industrie et la transformation numérique pour redonner vie à nos territoires. De la même manière qu’une grande entreprise ne peut pas vivre sans un tissu de PME adéquates, aucune grande métropole ne pourra se passer des zones rurales pour exister.
Cette résolution est donc une main tendue à la Commission pour rattraper les errements du passé. Restaurons le modèle économique de nos campagnes. Vous voulez une Europe durable? Restaurons les circuits courts. Vous voulez réindustrialiser? Rouvrons des usines dans nos villes moyennes qui en dépendent. Soutenons les initiatives nationales qui vont en ce sens, sans les étouffer dans des réglementations inutiles et contre-productives, comme vous savez si bien le faire. Nos campagnes méritent respect, moyens et autonomie. Notre avenir en sera assuré.
Zgłoszenia z sali
Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, consolidarea zonelor rurale este un obiectiv extrem de important. Domnule comisar, trebuie să gândim Fondul de coeziune împreună cu Politica Agricolă Comună, dar nu să luăm bani de la Politica Agricolă Comună și să punem la coeziune, că nu am făcut nimic.
Avem acolo posibilități și oportunități: să dezvoltăm turismul, turismul rural, să dezvoltăm și să consolidăm și să păstrăm tradițiile, meșteșugurile, putem, de asemenea, să dezvoltăm comerțul. Dar pentru aceste lucruri, oamenii de acolo și mai ales generația tânără nu se întorc în rural pentru că n-au condiții, n-au infrastructură.
De aceea spun că trebuie să gândim proiectele consolidat: infrastructură, să aibă medic, să existe școală, să poată să aibă conexiune la internet. Sunt zone întregi rurale în care nu există posibilitatea de conectivitate.
Sper, domnule comisar, că veți susține ca aceste zone rurale să aibă bugete țintite, pentru că dacă dăm buget la grămadă și mai este o problemă, s-a discutat aici, trebuie să simplificăm procedura de accesare a fondurilor de către administrațiile din comunitățile mici sau de către micii întreprinzători.
PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK Podpredseda
Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a política de coesão é fundamental para garantirmos zonas rurais vivas e com serviços básicos. Por isso, não concordamos que o governo europeu reoriente incorretamente os fundos para fins militares.
Na Galiza, o meu país, ainda se aguarda uma decisão sobre o que financiar com 60 % dos fundos. 62 % dos municípios galegos estão designados como zonas desfavorecidas. O êxodo rural avança de forma imparável na Galiza. Em apenas um ano, 32 aldeias ficaram desertas.
Temos escassez de serviços básicos nas zonas rurais e muita emigração. As pessoas ficam se houver trabalho e serviços.
Senhor Comissário, precisamos de um apoio específico para municípios afetados pelo despovoamento, vilas e áreas funcionais. São necessárias áreas funcionais e uma política de emprego dotada de serviços que atraiam as pessoas e que não as expulsem.
Precisamos de iniciativas para jovens agricultores para que também possam menos Altri e mais projetos, com direito a ficar.
João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário Fitto, o dia em que fazemos o debate sobre este relatório, a propósito da importância da política de coesão para as zonas rurais, é precisamente o dia em que a Comissão dos Orçamentos acaba de votar alterações aos regulamentos dos fundos europeus da política de coesão, nomeadamente o FEDER e o Fundo de Coesão, que passam a ter como objetivos específicos o militarismo.
A mobilidade militar na União passou a ser um dos objetivos de utilização dos fundos de coesão.
E nós perguntamos: como é que a mobilidade militar pode contribuir para o desenvolvimento das zonas rurais? O militarismo não serve a política de coesão, nem serve as zonas rurais e as suas necessidades específicas, tal como não serve objetivos de políticas setoriais que contrariam esta discussão que estamos hoje aqui a ter.
Quando a União Europeia financia o desenvolvimento da Rede Transeuropeia de Transportes, como está a fazer neste momento em Portugal, na ligação Sines-Caia, mas desconsidera a necessidade do investimento no aproveitamento da ligação ferroviária para as populações dessas regiões, não está a contribuir para a coesão, nem para o desenvolvimento das zonas rurais. Estes são objetivos das políticas setoriais que têm de ser considerados também.
Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι βιοπαλαιστές αγροτοκτηνοτρόφοι στην Ελλάδα τσακίζονται από τις τεράστιες αυξήσεις του κόστους παραγωγής, για εφόδια, ρεύμα και πετρέλαιο, από τις μηδαμινές αποζημιώσεις για τις μεγάλες καταστροφές, από μύλους και μεσάζοντες που αγοράζουν τα προϊόντα τους σε πολύ χαμηλές τιμές.
Είναι αποτελέσματα της μεγάλης ενιαίας αγοράς, της ευρωενωσιακής ΚΓΠ που τους έφερε στο χείλος του γκρεμού. Αυτά ευθύνονται για το σκάνδαλο με τις αγροτικές επιδοτήσεις του ΟΠΕΚΕΠΕ, με ευθύνες της σημερινής κυβέρνησης της Νέας Δημοκρατίας και των προηγούμενων. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση συναινούσε στην κλοπή σε βάρος των αγροτών, χορηγώντας ενισχύσεις αποσυνδεδεμένες από το κτηνοτροφικό κεφάλαιο, με το μοίρασμα επιδοτήσεων σε μη αγρότες-δικαιούχους για εικονικά βοσκοτόπια.
Πρέπει να γίνουν άμεσα οι πληρωμές που εκκρεμούν και να ανοίξει το σύστημα ώστε να εξυπηρετηθούν οι αγρότες. Οι βιοπαλαιστές αγρότες να απορρίψουν την ευρωενωσιακή γραμμή που τους ξεκληρίζει και τα κόμματα που πίνουν νερό στο όνομά της και τους συκοφαντούν. Να συμπορευτούν με το ΚΚΕ παλεύοντας για την ικανοποίηση των αιτημάτων τους, για τις δικές τους ανάγκες.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiamas posėdžio pirmininke, dėkoju pranešėjui. Tikrai puikus raportas ir, gerbiamas komisare, išklausėt labai daug gerų pasiūlymų. Neabejotina, kad sanglaudos politikos srityje reikalingos horizontalios programos, kurios apimtų švietimo, sveikatos, skaitmeninės infrastruktūros kompleksiškumą, ir nustatytos sąlygos (conditionality), kad niekas, net ir šalis narė, negalėtų pakeisti, nes didieji miestai, didieji regionai ir parlamentuose, kur daug stipresnės yra kitos jėgos, nuskriaudžia kaimo teritorijas. Kitas dalykas, pritraukti jaunimą galima tiktai investuojant stipriai į pažangias ūkininkavimo formas – patrauklias, „advanced farming“. Tos pažangios formos – su robotizacija, su dirbtiniu intelektu, naudojant įvairias naujas technologijas ir naujas veisles – ir augalų, ir taip toliau. Tas patrauktų jaunimą, nes jaunimas yra patrauklus mokslui ir gerai infrastruktūrai.
Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τόσο ως ECR όσο και ως Εθνικό Λαϊκό Μέτωπο δίνουμε προτεραιότητα στην ενίσχυση των αγροτικών και ορεινών περιοχών. Για εμάς, η διασφάλιση ενός βιώσιμου μέλλοντος για τις αγροτικές περιοχές —που κινδυνεύουν λόγω της γήρανσης του πληθυσμού, της αστυφιλίας, της εγκατάλειψης των νέων, της έλλειψης υπηρεσιών και των περιορισμένων ευκαιριών απασχόλησης και κοινωνικής ένταξης— αποτελεί κορωνίδα της πολιτικής μας.
Αναντίλεκτα, οι αγροτικές περιοχές αποτελούν το λίκνο της παραγωγής γεωργικών και διατροφικών προϊόντων, ενώ παράλληλα διαφυλάσσουν μια αναντικατάστατη πολιτιστική και τοπική κληρονομιά. Για να εξασφαλιστεί η μακροπρόθεσμη βιωσιμότητά τους, οι αγροτικές περιοχές πρέπει να αποκτήσουν ισότιμη πρόσβαση στην υγειονομική περίθαλψη, τη συνδεσιμότητα, την προσιτή στέγαση, το νερό, την εκπαίδευση, τις κατάλληλες υποδομές και άλλες βασικές υπηρεσίες.
Η Επιτροπή και τα κράτη μέλη έχουν καθήκον να παρέχουν επαρκή χρηματοδότηση, να κατανοήσουν ότι οφείλουν να στηρίξουν τις οικογένειες ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η ενεργός συμμετοχή τους στην αγροτική ανάπτυξη και τις οικονομικές δραστηριότητες.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Domnule președinte, vorbeați de faptul că cetățenii trebuie să aibă șansa de a rămâne în locurile în care s-au născut. Românii nu au avut această șansă.
10 milioane de români, jumătate din populația României, este nomadă în acest moment, în sensul în care a fost dată afară din țară de măsurile Uniunii Europene: pentru că ați închis mineritul, pădurile au fost luate de austrieci, iar la țară nu au mai rămas decât oamenii bătrâni. Românii vă dezvoltă dumneavoastră economiile, pentru că nouă ne-ați închis orice posibilitate de a ne dezvolta.
Știți că s-au desființat școli la țară? Știți că nu mai sunt dispensare? Știți că acuma, tot venind de la Uniunea Europeană, li se interzice să se mai încălzească cu lemne? Știți că deși avem o treime din rețeaua hidrografică a Europei, românilor le este interzis să mai scoată apă din fântână să-și ude plantele? Știți că dumneavoastră impuneți să avem boli la animale, astfel încât să nu mai avem agricultură și zootehnie?
(Koniec vystúpení na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)
Raffaele Fitto,Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for your contribution, of which I have taken good note. I appreciate your insights on the challenges the rural areas face and the significant role that cohesion policy plays in shaping the future of the EU’s rural areas.
You rightly point out the development of infrastructure, particularly in the fields of transport, energy and digital connectivity, alongside essential services for improving the quality of life in rural areas. The reduction of economic, social and territorial disparities will continue to remain at the core of cohesion policy, providing critical support to rural areas.
Your report and interventions today reaffirm this importance and will further guide our discussions and our work for the future of rural areas.
I would like to give only two messages.
First, many problems that you mentioned are the priority of the mid-term review, like water, housing, energy and competitiveness. And I remember to all of you that mid-term review is a voluntary basis. So defence is a possibility. And in particular for eastern border regions that have to face not only the challenge regarding defence but also the new economic challenges.
Second message, we can work together using also the new governance of the European Commission. As you know, under my executive vice-presidency we have a coordination of three commissioners: agriculture, tourism and transport, fisheries and blue economy. And I agreed with the three commissioners that we must work with a common vision to prepare the strategy for internal rural areas, starting by this important and very positive report.
Denis Nesci,relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sintesi del dibattito ha fatto emergere il lavoro che abbiamo fatto in questi mesi con i relatori ombra, con tutto lo staff, con gli advisor, cioè quello di cercare di sintetizzare e di fotografare la situazione attuale delle aree rurali per cercare di andare a risolvere ciò che non va e ciò che è stato dimenticato.
Io penso che questo dibattito abbia fatto emergere tutto ciò che abbiamo evidenziato: dalle infrastrutture, dalla digitalizzazione, dalla connettività, dai servizi sanitari essenziali, dalla formazione. Quindi, in questa relazione abbiamo centrato l’obiettivo che ci eravamo dati, senza tralasciare soprattutto la bussola che ci ha guidato lungo questo percorso, cioè poter garantire il diritto di restare, che era l’obiettivo principale, cioè la possibilità di dare ai giovani l’opportunità di decidere dove poter sviluppare, dove poter vivere e dove poter creare il proprio futuro.
Quindi io sono soddisfatto di questo lavoro e ancora ringrazio anche il lavoro fatto dalla Commissione, dal Commissario, dalle parole del Vicepresidente esecutivo, soprattutto perché ci ha trasmesso un messaggio di fiducia in merito all’utilizzo della politica di coesione.
Quindi concludo con l’invito, che ci è stato dato anche nell’ultimo intervento fatto dal Vicepresidente, che è quello di lavorare insieme. Allora cerchiamo tutti insieme di lavorare affinché si possa guardare nel concreto quelle che sono le problematiche da risolvere e lasciamo possibilmente da parte gli aspetti ideologici che non aiutano i cittadini europei.
Predsedajúci . – Rozprava je uzavretá.
22. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, recent riots on the island of Ireland, which began in the town of Ballymena in County Antrim, have morphed from concern about a tragic sexual assault allegation into xenophobic violence against migrant families. As Amnesty Northern Ireland Director Patrick Corrigan said, we are just one petrol bomb away from racially motivated murder.
Families have been forced from their homes as groups hurled bricks, petrol bombs and fireworks, leaving innocent children vulnerable and traumatised. This is not a protest for justice; it’s racism cloaked in outrage.
Sadly, inflammatory political rhetoric has added fuel to the fire. Some politicians have deliberately fanned the flames of hatred and, by linking migration to crime, they’ve pitted neighbour against neighbour.
We must stand with victims and prosecute hate-fuelled crimes swiftly. And we must invest in our community dialogue and integration. Ireland and Europe must show that diversity is a strength, not a threat.
Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, dragi colegi, în ultimele săptămâni, România s-a confruntat din nou cu inundații grave: oameni evacuați, locuințe distruse, drumuri rupte, vieți afectate. Printre zonele lovite se află și Salina Praid, un monument natural și un important obiectiv economic. Acolo, inundațiile au provocat pagube uriașe. O salină unică în Europa, folosită în scopuri medicale, riscă să se prăbușească.
Am cerut Comisiei Europene ajutor de urgență, iar apelul meu a fost ascultat. În câteva zile, experții europeni au ajuns în România. Acesta este rezultatul unui demers concret, pe care l-am început chiar aici, în Parlamentul European, dar trebuie mai mult.
În negocierile pentru bugetul Uniunii am reușit să obțin fonduri suplimentare pentru protecția civilă și catastrofele naturale. Solicit acum ca aceste sume obținute să fie folosite și pentru reconstrucție. Solidaritatea europeană trebuie să însemne și mai multă acțiune, ajutor concret și sprijin pentru oameni. Salina Praid și comunitățile afectate merită acest lucru.
Rody Tolassy (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, il y a quelques jours, à Nice, se tenait la conférence des Nations unies sur l’océan. Mme von der Leyen a présenté le pacte européen pour l’océan. Fort bien.
Mais pendant que l’on pactise ici, nos enfants, aux Antilles, continuent de respirer les émanations toxiques des sargasses. Depuis quatorze ans, l’Europe regarde ces algues échouer sur nos côtes, sans réaction. Pourtant, la science est claire: ce fléau n’est pas qu’une conséquence du changement climatique, il est aussi le résultat de déséquilibres structurels.
Pendant ce temps, nous vivons chaque saison dans l’urgence, dans le silence et dans l’oubli. Alors non, ce pacte ne pourra pas être un texte d’avenir s’il ne regarde pas vers ses avant-postes océaniques, les régions ultrapériphériques. Il est temps que l’Europe parle aussi antillais. Quand elle dit «océan», il est temps qu’elle finance un véritable plan de valorisation des sargasses pour que cette prolifération cesse d’être un désagrément subi et devienne une ressource maîtrisée, gérée directement en mer. Sinon, ce pacte ne sera qu’un parchemin vide, emporté par les mêmes courants qui, déjà, ont charrié le poison jusqu’à nos rivages.
Cynthia Ní Mhurchú (Renew). – A Chathaoirligh, cuireann aerfoirt réigiúnda na hEorpa go mór le nascacht, le hiomaíochas agus le fás eacnamaíoch cothrom i réigiúin na hEorpa.
Is údar imní dom, faraor, nach bhfuil ár ndóthain infheistíochta á dhéanamh orthu, mar shampla in iardheisceart na hÉireann, atá lonnaithe i mo thoghcheantar féin, ina bhfuil Aerfort Phort Láirge, Waterford Airport, fágtha leath-dhímhaoin. Is deis iontach ann go n‑úsáidfear Aerfort Phort Láirge chun taighde agus nuálaíocht a chur chun cinn i gcomhar le hOllscoil Teicneolaíochta an Oirdheiscirt.
Tá an Eoraip go mór chun cúil ar na Stáit Aontaithe maidir le breosla inbhuanaithe a fhorbairt d’eitleáin. Agus níl an scéal ach ina thús i dtaobh teicneolaíochta na ndrón a chabhróidh linn, in oibríochtaí tarrthála, mar shampla. Maidir le turasóireacht, le tacaíocht dírithe trí chiste úr Eorpach, d’fhéadfaí borradh, a bhfuil géarghá leis, a chur faoi nuálaíocht timpeall na hEorpa trínár n‑aerfoirt réigiúnda ar nós Waterford Airport.
Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, o galego é uma língua histórica, com raízes profundas, a língua do meu país, a Galiza.
O galego é o património imaterial do povo galego. A sua máxima expressão.
A Europa deve reconhecer os direitos linguísticos do nosso povo, assim o defendo como eurodeputada galega. Por isso, precisamos que o galego seja uma língua oficial na Europa para a representatividade, a visibilidade e o respeito do nosso povo. Porque o galego tem direito, estatuto legal e reconhecido.
As línguas representam os povos. Não é democrático criar línguas de primeira e línguas de segunda. Para o Governo galego, a nossa língua é uma língua de terceira. Que complexo de inferioridade! Desvaloriza a nossa língua e até faz lobby, aqui, na Europa, para impedir que o estatuto oficial seja reconhecido a nível europeu.
Que pena existirem governantes que desprestigiam as possibilidades da língua do seu país, a utilidade e o prestígio que isso daria ao galego, as possibilidades de trabalho, o mundo aberto através da nossa irmandade linguística.
Eu amo Alfonso Castelao, e, como ele dizia, «se ainda somos galegos é por obra e graça do idioma».
Rudi Kennes (The Left). – Voorzitter, collega’s, ik weet niet hoe jullie je voelen, maar ik schaam mij in ieder geval heel diep. We zijn blijkbaar alle slachtoffers al vergeten, evenals alle offers die onze ouders en grootouders hebben gebracht om na de chaos, de haat en de meer dan 80 miljoen doden tijdens de twee wereldoorlogen een Europa van vrede en gerechtigheid op te bouwen.
Ik dacht dat we klaar waren met kolonialisme, met blanke suprematie, met martelingen, met verspilling van miljarden aan wapens. En toch zijn we vandaag hier en kijken we gewoon op onze gsm’s naar kinderen en patiënten die levend worden verbrand, gehandicapte burgers die worden verscheurd door door het leger getrainde honden, baby’s die in couveuses worden achtergelaten om te sterven, artsen die worden gemarteld, ziekenhuizen en scholen die worden gebombardeerd, journalisten die worden vermoord en gevangenen en die worden verkracht, keizersneden die moeten worden toegediend zonder verdoving.
Collega’s, ik doe een beroep op jullie gevoel voor ethiek. We kunnen en mogen niet toestaan dat onze leiders ons medeplichtig maken aan dat alles. We mogen de wereld niet opnieuw overlaten aan psychopaten. Onze vertegenwoordigers moeten zich inzetten voor een wereld van vrede en welvaart, en niet van dood en vernietiging.
Alexander Jungbluth (ESN). – Herr Präsident! In Deutschland werden die Grundrechte mit Füßen getreten. Dort ist es inzwischen normal, dass man bespitzelt wird, wenn man nicht regierungskonform ist, oder die Polizei einem die Tür eintritt, wenn man einen grünen Minister kritisiert. Nun haben die Mächtigen in Deutschland etwas Neues aus dem Giftschrank geholt – Berufsverbote. Ist es gerechtfertigt, einem talentierten Schriftsteller den Zugang zu seinem Beruf zu verwehren, nur weil seine Meinung kontrovers ist? In Deutschland schon. So wird aktuell einem Juristen die Laufbahn als Richter oder Anwalt verweigert, weil er einen Roman geschrieben hat, der den Behörden nicht passt.
Damit nicht genug: Uli Grötsch von der SPD fordert, dass AfD‑Mitglieder aus dem Polizeidienst geworfen werden. Die SPD, die auf einem historischen Tiefstand ist und zu einer Splitterpartei verkommt, handelt nach dem Motto: Wenn wir schon so schlecht sind, dass uns niemand mehr wählen will, dann zerstören wir doch einfach die Existenzen der Opposition. Lehrer, die nicht gewillt sind, ihre Schüler maximal zu indoktrinieren, haben auch schon Druck bekommen. Deutschland wird jeden Tag ein wenig unfreier. Wir werden für die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes kämpfen, und die Altparteien werden verlieren.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Domnule președinte, vorbim de libertatea de exprimare și de democrație. Nu, nu există. Și în România este la fel ca și în Germania și chiar mai rău. Odată ce ești împotriva puterii, ești catalogat drept antisemit.
Vă spun asta pentru că absolut toată opoziția este făcută antisemită și se adoptă legislație împotriva opoziției, acuzându-i de antisemitism, interzicând istoria României. Bună, rea, este interzisă de un anumit domn reprezentant al khazarilor din România. Este interzisă, iar dacă vorbești despre istoria României, ești băgat în pușcărie 10 ani.
Dacă tipărești o carte sau cumperi o carte despre istoria României din Cel de-Al Doilea și după Al Doilea Război Mondial, faci pușcărie 10 ani. Dacă îți permiți să vorbești de mareșalul Antonescu și Corneliu Zelea Codreanu și Mișcarea legionară, care nu a fost niciodată condamnată de Tribunalul de la Nuremberg, faci pușcărie 10 ani.
Și asta pentru că așa vrea domnul Vexler, care e reprezentantul khazarilor din România. Și vă întreb unde este libertatea de exprimare? Cum să suprimi ziare, jurnale și televiziuni, pentru că unora nu le convine adevărul. Shimon Peres a menționat…
(Președintele a retras cuvântul vorbitoarei)
Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros colegas, assinalámos no passado dia 12 de Junho, quatro décadas de adesão de Portugal à então Comunidade Económica Europeia, marco fundamental na consolidação da nossa democracia e também na modernização do país.
A integração europeia representou para Portugal uma oportunidade de desenvolvimento económico, o reforço do Estado de direito e a projeção internacional.
Ao longo destes 40 anos, beneficiámos de investimentos estruturantes, ampliámos horizontes para as nossas empresas e para os cidadãos e afirmámos os valores que partilhámos com os restantes Estados‑Membros. Valores da paz, valores da liberdade, valores da solidariedade e valores da coesão.
Portugal é hoje um membro plenamente comprometido com o projeto europeu. E é com responsabilidade que devemos continuar a contribuir para uma União mais forte, mais coesa e mais próxima dos cidadãos.
Celebrar 40 anos é, acima de tudo, renovar o nosso compromisso com o futuro da Europa.
Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, ați moștenit de la vechea comisie un program de reindustrializare a Uniunii Europene. Am mai pus întrebarea: se ține cont că vrem să avem o industrie sau doar vorbim?
Am niște date statistice de anul trecut. Țări ca țara mea, România, dar și Italia, și Spania, și Franța au industria, de exemplu, pentru plăci ceramice aproape distrusă, pentru că se importă din India, din Egipt, din Turcia, cu prețuri la jumătate. Oamenii, firmele (în țara mea mai este o singură firmă), au investit sute de milioane de euro și riscă să închidă fabricile.
Această e concurență neloială cu prețuri la jumătate. Pentru că da, India nu plătește nici certificate verzi, nu plătește nici taxe pe CO2 la consumul de gaz, știm bine că salariile acolo sunt altele, protecția socială nu există.
Ce facem pentru a face o protecție? Și vă spun, în calitate de vicepreședintă a Comisiei pentru piața internă, vrem să mai avem industrie, vrem să avem locuri de muncă, vrem să crească veniturile oamenilor? Trebuie măsuri concrete și aștept aceste răspunsuri.
Marie Dauchy (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, comment peut-on tolérer, dans cet hémicycle, l’imposture de Rima Hassan, une élue qui, à chaque prise de parole, détourne le drame israélo-palestinien à des fins idéologiques et communautaristes? Pas un mot pour la France, pas un mot pour l’Europe, seulement une obsession: importer un conflit qui n’est pas le nôtre sur notre sol.
Sa colère est à géométrie variable. Elle se met en scène en victime après moins de 24 heures de garde à vue, alors que des enfants ont été massacrés le 7 octobre. Quant à sa prétendue grève de la faim de 8 heures, c’est une provocation indécente face à la tragédie vécue à Gaza. Mais le plus inquiétant, c’est le silence, voire la complaisance de trop d’élus dans cet hémicycle.
L’Union européenne ne doit pas être le porte-voix de ceux qui attisent la haine. Elle doit redevenir une voix de paix, de fermeté et de clarté. Retrouvons le cap, retrouvons la voix de la France.
Ciaran Mullooly (Renew). – Mr President, we’re in a housing crisis, so we’re told. In Ireland and in Europe we need simple, straightforward reforms.
Currently, the credit union sector in Ireland have EUR 22 billion in assets, just EUR 7 billion in loans given out. They want to lend out more for housing and other things. But under current central Bank of Ireland rules, credit unions must hold 10 % of the value of any investment in Irish government bonds as a capital reserve. This is despite the fact that under EU banking regulations, government bonds are considered zero‑risk assets and require no such capital buffer.
If our Irish regulations were to be aligned with EU norms and this reserve requirement were to be removed, credit unions could redirect billions into domestic investment. They would immediately free up EUR 1 billion for lending to families, small businesses, farmers and for building affordable homes.
Imagine what it would do. People like Tom Allen in Mullingar, a credit union, could put young couples on the first rung of the ladder for houses for the first time, so we need to get our credit unions the tools they need to invest in their future and strengthen our communities.
I appeal for reform here, reform this 10 % reserve rule and start that investment.
Nicolae Ștefănuță (Verts/ALE). – Domnule președinte, uciderea Teodorei Marcu a șocat țara noastră și de atunci 26 de femei au fost ucise pentru simplul fapt că sunt, că au fost femei. Singura lor vină a fost dorința bărbaților de a le trata după bunul plac, ca pe proprietăți, să le bată sălbatic și chiar să le omoare, dacă așa își doresc.
Milioane de femei suferă în tăcere și pot astfel deveni următoarele victime. De aceea trebuie să vorbim despre femicid. De ce? Pentru că este considerată o circumstanță agravantă care adaugă pedepsei penale. Trebuie să vorbim despre femicid ca să arătăm că este cea mai mare crimă a violenței de gen. Trebuie să mai vorbim despre consimțământ, despre viol, despre ce înseamnă abuz psihic, abuz psihologic, abuz fizic împotriva femeilor.
Și încă ceva: nu trebuie să facă acest lucru femeile mereu, ci toți bărbații Europei trebuie să fie alături de ele.
João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, a habitação é uma prioridade na resposta aos problemas dos povos e é preciso que a União Europeia tome as medidas necessárias para que haja soluções a nível nacional para aumentar a oferta pública de habitação, proteger os inquilinos, combater a especulação imobiliária, garantir a mobilização do investimento necessário para que as casas que estão devolutas –– os imóveis que são propriedade do Estado –– possam ser afetados ao objetivo da habitação, que tanta falta faz aos povos do espaço da União Europeia.
Em Portugal, essas necessidades também se fazem sentir de forma absolutamente urgente e imediata. No entanto, aquilo que vemos da parte da União Europeia são opções no sentido contrário, que, de resto, incentivam os Estados e os governos a fazerem as opções exatamente contrárias.
A proposta de orçamento para 2026 da União Europeia não assume a prioridade da habitação, mas permite o desvio de recursos orçamentais para o militarismo e a guerra. A revisão intercalar das políticas de coesão não deu prioridade à habitação, mas permitiu a utilização dos fundos de coesão para o objetivo do militarismo e da guerra. Por isso, não espanta que o Governo português queira agora gastar em 2025 o triplo dos gastos militares, o triplo das verbas que estavam inicialmente previstas para a habitação no PRR. Essas são as opções erradas.
Jan-Peter Warnke (NI). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe einen eher grundsätzlichen Punkt zu machen. Wir leben im Jahre 2025 und führen Debatten, als wären wir im Kalten Krieg. Ich war mein Leben lang Arzt und habe nie verstanden, warum Politik nicht friedlich denken kann. Mehr Panzer machen Europa nicht sicherer. Die Zahl schwerer Waffen entscheidet heute nicht mehr über Krieg und Frieden, sondern der politische Wille, Konflikte diplomatisch zu lösen. Lassen Sie uns hier im Parlament gemeinsam für eine europäische Friedensordnung, die auf Kooperation und nicht auf Konfrontation setzt, einstehen.
Nebenbei bemerkt: Für rund 600 Milliarden Euro – das ist der Umfang der weltweiten Rüstungsausgaben – hätten wir vermutlich längst einen Durchbruch bei der Behandlung von Krebs erzielt. Statt Kriege zu führen, können wir Leben retten. Europa muss ein Vorbild sein, nicht im Wettrüsten, sondern im Friedenshandeln. Wir sind ein Friedensprojekt. Was Gesundheit für den Einzelnen ist, ist Frieden für die Gesellschaft. Ohne beides ist alles nichts.
Nina Carberry (PPE). – Mr President, addressing the skills gap in Europe has rightly been identified as a core priority of this Commission, and so we should not be surprised to learn that a new report in Ireland has found that there is urgent need to take action in the advanced manufacturing sector. The sector has now faced threats that will impact innovation, competitiveness and economic growth on both sides of the border.
The 2025 Future Skills Report, compiled on behalf of Louth and Meath Education and Training Board, showed that the engagement in the sector remains low among younger people, and especially women.
If we are to compete on a global scale, we must break the barriers contributing to the skills gap in Europe. The EU now needs to follow up on its Union of Skills initiative with concrete actions, creating lasting opportunities for young, skilled workers. This is not a task that one region, one sector or one government can tackle alone. It’s a shared challenge.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, vicepresidente Fitto, a finales del pasado mes de mayo se desplazó a la isla de El Hierro una delegación de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior. Se trata del punto de mayor afluencia de la ruta más mortífera de migración hacia la Unión Europea. Mi tributo a la sociedad herreña, y a la canaria en general, por su mirada humanitaria ante el hecho migratorio, sin ninguna concesión a la xenofobia ni al rechazo.
Canarias espera mucho de la implementación del Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo y, particularmente, de su pilar de solidaridad y del coordinador de solidaridad europeo, que debe facilitar la redistribución de las personas arribadas a fronteras exteriores, regiones exteriores, como es el caso de Canarias en el conjunto de la Unión.
Eso no impide subrayar que España, siendo un país intensamente descentralizado, encuentre un problema para articular esa solidaridad en su interior, como consecuencia de que en el consejo de política migratoria existe una amplia mayoría de comunidades gobernadas por el Partido Popular que se niegan a recibir a los menores no acompañados que se hacinan en Canarias y, por tanto, este es el momento de subrayar que el PP no puede ser, sin más, parte del problema y nunca de la solución.
Thierry Mariani (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, en février, notre Parlement a adopté une résolution sur la crise à l’est de la République démocratique du Congo, pointant très clairement la responsabilité du Rwanda dans ce drame qui dure depuis 30 ans. Quatre ans après et quelques sanctions symboliques après, la République démocratique du Congo a complètement disparu des préoccupations de l’Union européenne. Mais, quatre ans après, M. Kagame et ses milices continuent d’occuper une partie de la RDC, de la piller et d’y massacrer. Pourquoi? Parce que Kigali se moque ouvertement de nous et de notre lâcheté, à moins qu’ils profitent de notre complaisance.
Oui, l’UE se moque de l’Union. Oui, l’UE se moque des Congolais, car, pour l’Ukraine, on est capable d’en être à la 18ᵉ vague de sanctions – pour le Congo, une seule vague de sanctions, qui en réalité n’a donné aucun résultat. En RDC, les cadavres et les preuves s’accumulent, mais Bruxelles regarde ailleurs. Toute cette ridicule comédie doit cesser, car plus de 100 millions de Congolais nous regardent et attendent que l’Union européenne sanctionne réellement M. Kagame et son entourage qui sont les seuls responsables de ce massacre.
Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, pentru a reduce prețul electricității, e imperativ să se renunțe la sistemul actual ce stabilește prețul energiei pe baza prețului marginal, care impune ca cel mai scump tip de energie să dicteze prețul întregii piețe.
Acest model a devenit ineficient și injust, mai ales într-o perioadă în care ponderea energiei regenerabile mai ieftine este în creștere. Dacă 10 % din energie e produsă pe cărbune, care e mai scumpă, e absurd ca restul de 90 % de energie consumată, produsă din surse regenerabile care au cost de producție mai mic, să fie vândută la același preț ca și energia produsă pe cărbune.
Avem nevoie de un sistem de tarifare a energiei care să acopere costurile reale de producție și să facă profit firmelor, dar în niciun caz genul de cost, cum se întâmplă în prezent, care produce profituri imense firmelor, dar face produsele și serviciile ineficiente. Renunțarea la prețul marginal pentru stabilirea prețului la energie este imperativă pentru reducerea prețului energiei în Europa, ceea ce va conduce la reducerea sărăciei și protejarea familiilor.
Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Domnule președinte, dragi colegi, după cum știți, România și-a ales în sfârșit președintele. După o serie de încălcări ale Constituției care au presupus atât lichidarea unor candidați, cât și anularea efectivă a alegerilor, în sfârșit avem un președinte care de circa o lună de zile nu e în stare să găsească un prim-ministru.
Întrucât jumătate din poporul român are senzația că dumneavoastră, Bruxelles-ul și Strasbourgul, ați pus președintele în România, vă rog respectuos să ne puneți și un prim-ministru. Puneți-ne un prim-ministru ca să știe și România încotro merge, care va fi viața ei economică și socială.
Nu, lăsăm la o parte suveranismul, că înțeleg că suveranismul nu mai este important și că oricum vă displace acel suveranism care este creator de stat modern și care este păstrător de tradiții și obiceiuri. Acel suveranism care se opune până la urmă implicării instituțiilor de guvernanță globală care să vină peste noi și să ne impună ce să mâncăm, cum să mâncăm, ce să facem, cât să stăm în casă, cât să cheltuim, ce bani să cheltuim și până la urmă să ne impună tot stilul de viață.
Pe când globalismul pare a fi mai la modă, acel globalism care nu reprezintă nimic altceva decât o societate în declin, o societate care uniformizează…
(Președintele a retras cuvântul vorbitorului)
Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, na doutrina da Ordo Amoris, Santo Agostinho ensinava que o amor deve ser ordenado: do mais próximo para o mais afastado. Primeiro a Deus, depois à família, à comunidade e só depois aos mais distantes.
Hoje, com o reagrupamento familiar no centro da política migratória, é essencial afirmar a nossa posição frontalmente contra políticas que promovem a imigração descontrolada.
Portugal já tem 1,6 milhões de imigrantes. Sem limites, ultrapassaremos os 2 milhões. Esta pressão apaga a nossa identidade, compromete a nossa segurança, desafia a coesão nacional e coloca em risco Schengen, que celebra agora 40 anos.
Temos de ter coração, mas também cabeça. A generosidade não tem de ser ingénua. A nossa primeira obrigação é com a nossa comunidade e com quem nos elegeu. O rio fora do leito torna-se dilúvio. O remédio, sem medida, faz adoecer. Até o bem, quando desgovernado, pode destruir.
Para que não destruamos a coesão dos nossos países e a Europa de Schengen, combateremos o reagrupamento familiar de migrantes.
President. – Thank you very much. That concludes the 1-minute speeches. Thank you, Executive Vice-President, for listening until the end.
23. Agenda of the next sitting
Predsedajúci . – Nasledujúce rokovanie sa uskutoční zajtra v utorok 17. júna so začiatkom o deviatej hodine ráno. Program schôdze bol zverejnený, je k dispozícii na webovom sídle Európskeho parlamentu.
24. Approval of the minutes of the sitting
Predsedajúci . – Zápisnica z tohto rokovania bude predložená parlamentu na schválenie zajtra na začiatku popoludňajšieho rokovania.
TULSA, Okla. – Today, U.S. District Judge John D. Russell sentenced Nicholas Jarrod Weeden, 43, for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm in Indian Country and Assault of an Intimate/Dating Partner by Strangling and Suffocating in Indian Country. Judge Russell ordered Weeden to serve 115 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
According to court documents, in April 2024, Weeden went to his ex-girlfriend’s house. They began arguing and Weeden strangled the victim. He then hit her head against the wall and door, grabbed a wooden club, and hit her over the head with it. The victim fought back enough to escape and called 911 for help.
Weeden is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and will remain in custody pending transfer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
The FBI and the Tulsa Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stacey Todd and Melissa Weems prosecuted the case.
TULSA, Okla. – Today, U.S. District Judge John D. Russell sentenced Nicholas Jarrod Weeden, 43, for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm in Indian Country and Assault of an Intimate/Dating Partner by Strangling and Suffocating in Indian Country. Judge Russell ordered Weeden to serve 115 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
According to court documents, in April 2024, Weeden went to his ex-girlfriend’s house. They began arguing and Weeden strangled the victim. He then hit her head against the wall and door, grabbed a wooden club, and hit her over the head with it. The victim fought back enough to escape and called 911 for help.
Weeden is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and will remain in custody pending transfer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
The FBI and the Tulsa Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stacey Todd and Melissa Weems prosecuted the case.
LONDON, June 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — UK-based entrepreneur and podcaster Matt Haycox has reached a combined total of over 200,000 monthly downloads across his two business-focused podcasts, Stripping Off with Matt Haycox and No Bollocks with Matt Haycox. The milestone reflects a growing audience appetite for unfiltered, honest conversations about entrepreneurship, failure, and growth.
Haycox, a self-made entrepreneur who experienced both financial success and bankruptcy before rebuilding his career, launched the two shows to offer an alternative to the polished and heavily scripted business content often found in mainstream media. Both podcasts feature in-depth interviews with founders, investors, celebrities, Olympians, and creatives, many of whom share personal stories not typically discussed in public forums.
Stripping Off focuses on the emotional and personal journeys behind entrepreneurial success, while No Bollocks delivers strategic business insights without jargon or embellishment. Guests have included a range of high-profile individuals who open up about the realities behind their careers, highlighting both achievements and setbacks.
Speaking about the milestone, Haycox said:
“There’s a lot of noise in the podcasting space, but not a lot of truth. Listeners are tired of hearing the same success stories told the same way. We go deeper—and sometimes that means getting uncomfortable. But that’s where the real value is.”
The podcasts have built a loyal audience across the UK and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, resonating particularly with startup founders, business professionals, and aspiring entrepreneurs between the ages of 25 and 50. Across platforms, Haycox now reaches an estimated 500,000+ people, with growing traction on YouTube and social media channels.
Haycox’s shows continue to stand out in a crowded podcasting landscape by prioritising transparency over performance and by choosing guests based on their willingness to share experiences authentically—regardless of outcome.
The podcasts are available on all major platforms, with full archives and additional resources available at https://matt-haycox.com/podcasts/.
Disclaimer: This press release is provided by the Matt Haycox. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.
Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.
Yakima, Washington – Acting United States Attorney Richard Barker announced that Jose Antonio Saldana, age 43, of Wapato, Washington, was sentenced on three counts of Abusive Sexual Contact and of Aggravated Sexual Abuse. Saldana was found guilty on March 12, 2025, following a jury trial. United States District Judge Mary K. Dimke sentenced Saldana to 45 years in prison to be followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
Based on court documents and evidence presented at trial and sentencing, beginning in August 1999, and continuing to January 2014, Saldana sexually abused three children under the age of 13 in Wapato, Washington. During trial, the victims recounted the abuse they suffered, which included Saldana touching them under their clothing and attempting to sexually abuse one of the victims.
“Mr. Saldana’s significant sentence reflects the seriousness of his conduct. I want to commend the brave victims who testified to the abuse they suffered and identified Mr. Saldana as their abuser,” stated Acting United States Attorney Barker. “My office will continue working closely with our law enforcement partners to hold offenders accountable and support survivors on their path to healing.”
This case was investigated by the FBI and the Yakama Nation Police Department. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Michael Murphy.
ST. LOUIS – A registered sex offender living in Park Hills, Missouri on Tuesday admitted molesting a 14-year-old boy and providing cash and marijuana in exchange for nude images.
Reginald M. Miller, 57, of Park Hills, Missouri, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to coercion and enticement of a minor as a repeat offender, solicitation of child pornography as a prior offender and receiving child pornography as a prior offender.
Miller admitted molesting the 14-year-old victim beginning in 2023 by touching his genitals without consent. Miller gave the victim alcohol and marijuana and paid him in attempt to keep him from reporting the molestation. Miller later offered the victim money or marijuana to expose himself in video calls. On Jan. 4, 2024, Miller sent a text to the victim saying that there was no escape from their “friendship,” the plea agreement says.
At Miller’s sentencing, scheduled for October 15, the U.S. Attorney’s office will request a sentence of 40 years in prison.
In 1999, Miller was convicted of the felony offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree and two misdemeanor offenses of assault in the third degree in St. Louis County Circuit Court and sentenced to jail and probation. In 2008, Miller was convicted of charges including statutory sodomy in St. Louis Circuit Court and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
The LaSalle Police Department, LaSalle County Sheriff’s Office, Park Hills Police Department and FBI’s St. Louis Division investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jillian Anderson is prosecuting the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark
A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images
After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.
Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.
This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.
“Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.
After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.
Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.
I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.
Not a new trend
Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.
This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.
In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.
These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.
“He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.
Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.
After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”
The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019. Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images
Tracing the lone wolf mythology
How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?
Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.
After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.
And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”
The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.
By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.
The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.
Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.
Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark
A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images
After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.
Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.
This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.
“Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.
After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.
Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.
I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.
Not a new trend
Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.
This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.
In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.
These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.
“He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.
Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.
After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”
The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019. Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images
Tracing the lone wolf mythology
How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?
Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.
After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.
And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”
The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.
By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.
The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.
Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.
Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17)
The “Weather Workforce Improvement Act” Ensures the National Weather Service is Fully Staffed Going into This Year’s Hurricane and Severe Weather Season
Last week, Congressmen Eric Sorensen (IL-17), Mike Flood (NE-1), Jared Moskowitz (FL-23), Frank Lucas (OK-3), and Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) introduced their bipartisanWeather Workforce Improvement Actto help the National Weather Service (NWS) fully staff critical positions at their offices as the country prepares for severe weather and hurricanes this summer.
Read more about the bipartisan legislation:
CNN:Rep. Sorensen discusses bipartisan legislation to help staff the National Weather Service during severe weather and hurricane season
Congressman Sorensen: “We need to make sure that we are understanding that the National Weather Service meteorologists are there to care for our communities, but they are essential. They are as essential to our safety as TSA and air traffic controllers. I’m so thankful – as being the only meteorologist in Congress – that we’re able to work across the aisle. Congressman Flood from Nebraska and myself realized that ‘hey, we’re in severe weather season – we’re going to be ramping up into hurricane season.’ We need to make sure that we have the staffing levels that are needed. We have too many people that have been let go. This administration needs to hire them back.”
New York Times:Law would make most National Weather Service workers hard to fire
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives on Friday would make it harder to fire most employees of the National Weather Service and give the agency’s director the authority to hire new staff directly, months after it lost nearly 600 employees to layoffs and retirements as part of the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to the federal work force.
The bill’s other sponsors include Representative Frank Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, as well as Democratic Representatives Jared Moskowitz of Florida, Jimmy Panetta of California, and Eric Sorensen of Illinois. All represent states that have been hit by severe weather this year.
“Severe weather affects both blue states and red states, and ensuring Americans have access to reliable and accurate weather forecasting is something everyone should support regardless of their political affiliation,” said Mr. Sorensen, who is the only meteorologist in Congress. “I’m grateful for Congressman Flood’s partnership on bipartisan legislation that will help fully staff National Weather Service offices across the country during severe weather and hurricane season.”
NBC News:Tired in tornado alley
NBC News joined a congressional tour — at the invitation of Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., Congress’ only meteorologist and a critic of the administration — to see the effects of the Trump administration’s cuts at the Quad Cities forecasting office for Iowa and Illinois.
Sorensen, who worked for 22 years as a TV meteorologist, has signed on to co-sponsor Flood’s bill, along with Reps. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., and Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif. Sorensen said he’s concerned a mistake by a worn-down meteorologist will lead to unnecessary deaths. He compared the situation to a used car — once trusty and now headed for a lapse.
“It’s not running the way that it was supposed to,” Sorensen said of the service. “Meteorologists, we’re human, you know. We will make mistakes, and I don’t want to ever see us in a situation where funding or a lack of funding has now caused there to be a loss of life.”
NBC News:Rep. Sorensen highlights importance of the National Weather Service in his congressional district
Reporter: […] Congressman Eric Sorensen visited his local weather office to listen to and encourage the forecasters stretched thin. So thin, that sometimes they can’t do basic things, like launch a weather balloon.
[…]
Reporter: Now, (Rep.) Flood is partnering with Sorensen on a bipartisan bill to further protect weather service forecasters by reclassifying them as public safety, alongside FBI agents and air traffic controllers.
Congressman Sorensen: “We have to make sure that we’re protecting [National Weather Service meteorologists] because they don’t just serve my constituents here. They serve constituents of every Member of Congress.”
Glenn Boyd was in prison at the time he committed this offense.
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN — Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan Alexis Sanford today announced that Glenn Daeward Boyd, 36, of Kershaw, South Carolina, was sentenced to a total of 272 months in the Bureau of Prisons. A jury convicted him in February of attempted extortion, stalking, and five counts of wire fraud.
Boyd was serving a sentence at a prison in South Carolina for voluntary manslaughter, assault with intent to kill, assaulting a correctional employee, and inciting a riot. According to the evidence at trial, Boyd used a contraband cell phone to pretend to be “Jad,” an 18-year-old girl from Grand Rapids, Michigan on the dating application “Plenty of Fish.” As “Jad,” he communicated with B.G. beginning in August 2023. Two days after their first communication, Boyd, continuing to pose as “Jad,” told B.G. he was a 15-year-old girl. Boyd then assumed the identity of “Jad’s grandparents,” threatening B.G. that “they” would contact police and B.G.’s family to report B.G. as a pedophile if B.G. did not send money. Boyd also used a Facebook profile to post on an account related to B.G.: “He is a pedophile I have all the evidence if anyone wants to see it.” In response, and on the same day of the threats, B.G. reported Boyd’s extortion scheme to the police and died by suicide. B.G. was 22 years old.
“Yesterday’s sentencing serves as a stark reminder of the grave nature of Mr. Boyd’s predatory actions specifically, his heinous crimes of sexual exploitation and extortion that have tragically resulted in a profound loss of life,” said Cheyvoryea Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan. “As we stand in solidarity with the victim’s loved ones, the FBI is unwavering in its commitment to deliver justice. We will collaborate with our law enforcement partners throughout the state to identify and hold accountable those who perpetrate acts of online exploitation.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Wyoming Police Department, South Carolina Department of Corrections, South Carolina Department of Corrections – Office of Inspector General, Newaygo County Sheriff’s Department, and Van Buren County Sheriff’s Department investigated this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Constance R. Turnbull and Jonathan Roth prosecuted it.
The FBI provides the following six tips on how people can protect themselves from sextortion schemes:
Be selective about what you share online. If your social media accounts are open to everyone, a predator may be able to figure out a lot of information about you.
Be wary of anyone you encounter for the first time online. Block or ignore messages from strangers.
Be aware that people can pretend to be anything or anyone online. Videos and photos are not proof that people are who they claim to be. Images can be altered or stolen. In some cases, predators have even taken over the social media accounts of their victims.
Be suspicious if you meet someone on one game or app and this person asks you to start talking on a different platform.
Be in the know. Any content you create online—whether it is a text message, photo, or video—can be made public. And nothing actually “disappears” online. Once you send something, you don’t have any control over where it goes next.
Be willing to ask for help. If you are getting messages or requests online that don’t seem right, block the sender, report the behavior to the site administrator, or go to an adult. If you have been victimized online, tell someone.
