Category: Justice

MIL-OSI USA: In Letter, Murray, Blumenthal, Gallego Call on Secretary Collins Stop Endangering VA Research
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

“Scientific research takes years to build, and it cannot be treated like a spigot – turned on and off at will to serve the Trump Administration’s efforts to balance the budget on the backs of veterans.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) recently expressed their deep concerns with the ongoing setbacks to medical research at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a result of VA Secretary Doug Collins’ cuts and policies at the Department, including his months-long hiring freeze on essential research staff.

“Mr. Secretary, your hiring freeze has brought real-life impacts and pain upon our veterans – and reversing your hiring freeze for these positions months later is not enough to undo this harm,” the senators wrote in their letter to Secretary Collins. “VA researchers often work on 2- or 3-year appointments – “not to exceed” (NTE) contracts – which, as long as the researcher has funding, are typically rolled over into new appointments. Due to your hiring freeze, essential researchers whose terms were ending soon were shown the door and forced to abandon often lifesaving work, and their positions were unable to be backfilled. These actions damaged veterans’ access to cutting-edge treatments and clinical trials.” The senators cited specific examples of how the Trump VA’s hiring freeze impeded veterans’ access to critical clinical trials, including those aimed at preventing dementia and heart disease, better predicting veterans’ stroke risk, studying advanced cancers, and a substance use disorder study.

The senators urged Collins to “rebuild this cornerstone of the United States’ medical research enterprise” by rehiring VA researchers whose terms were not extended due to the hiring freeze; addressing the backlog of research positions that were frozen but are now able to be hired again; coordinating with the National Institutes of Health to restore cancelled grants for VA researchers; and allowing researchers to publish their findings without the unprecedented step of preapproval by political appointees.

The senators also emphasized their concerns around the prospect of politicizing VA research: “We are also concerned by reports that VA research studies may now have to be approved by political appointees before publication in academic journals. Please clarify to Congress, VA research employees, and veterans that no political appointees will be involved in approving or censoring the publication of research studies. Such clarification will support the historically bipartisan nature of VA research and help assure current and future VA researchers that VA will not censor the work of the talented staff it employs.”

The senators concluded: “Scientific research takes years to build, and it cannot be treated like a spigot – turned on and off at will to serve the Trump Administration’s efforts to balance the budget on the backs of veterans. The consequences of your hiring freeze – and the resulting backlog in hiring VA research staff – could be severe and long-lasting. You still have the chance to correct course by immediately rehiring wrongly terminated researchers, working with OPM to quickly address the backlog in research staff hiring, coordinating with other agencies to restore all grants revoked from VA researchers, and assuring current and future VA researchers that their research will not be subject to political review.”

Senator Murray was the first woman to join the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the first woman to chair the Committee—as the daughter of a World War II veteran, supporting veterans and their families has always been an important priority for her. In March, Senator Murray and her colleagues sent letters to VA Secretary Doug Collins demanding that the VA swiftly reverse moves to cut VA researchers, as well as multiple letters pressing Secretary Collins to sever DOGE’s access to any VA or other government system with information about veterans, and protect veterans, their families, and VA staff from unprecedented access to sensitive information. Senator Murray grilled Trump’s nominee for VA Deputy Secretary, Dr. Paul Lawrence, on the mass firings of VA employees and VA researchers, and voted against Doug Collins’s nomination to be VA Secretary in early February, sounding the alarm over reports of DOGE at the VA and making clear that the Trump administration’s lawlessness was putting our national security and our veterans at risk.

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Collins,

We write today to express our deep concerns with the setbacks to medical research at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under your leadership. Although VA has begun to resolve some of your self-inflicted issues, including your multiple months-long hiring freeze on essential research staff, we call on you to take additional key actions to build back VA research. To rebuild this cornerstone of the United States’ medical research enterprise, you must rehire VA researchers whose terms were not extended due to the hiring freeze, address the backlog of research positions that were frozen but are now able to be hired again, coordinate with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to restore cancelled grants for VA researchers, and allow researchers to publish their findings without the unprecedented step of preapproval by political appointees.

Mr. Secretary, your hiring freeze has brought real-life impacts and pain upon our veterans – and reversing your hiring freeze for these positions months later is not enough to undo this harm. VA researchers often work on 2- or 3-year appointments – “not to exceed” (NTE) contracts – which, as long as the researcher has funding, are typically rolled over into new appointments. Due to your hiring freeze, essential researchers whose terms were ending soon were shown the door and forced to abandon often lifesaving work, and their positions were unable to be backfilled. These actions damaged veterans’ access to cutting-edge treatments and clinical trials. For example:
- A clinical trial aimed at preventing dementia and heart disease was unable to renew a without compensation appointment and had to turn veterans away from enrollment.
- A substance use disorder study was paused due to an employee’s termination, leaving progress stalled on a major public health issue affecting veterans at a rate higher than non-veterans.
- Critical research employees on a study predicting stroke risk were fired, leading this study to be halted.
- Enrollment in clinical trials for advanced cancers was delayed, limiting access to promising therapies.
To ensure there are no further impediments to this vital research, we request a list of all research positions that are still subject to the hiring freeze – including research positions at VA’s Centers of Excellence and Centers of Innovation – and call on you to rehire all researchers who, through no fault of their own, had their NTE contracts expire during the hiring freeze. We also urge you to work with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to quickly address the backlog in research staff hiring that your hiring freeze has engendered. VA research staff nationwide are reporting a significant backlog in the hiring process for critical research employees who are finally, after months of waiting, no longer subject to your hiring freeze. Failure to swiftly address this backlog will put veterans’ health at risk, decimate the morale of an already understaffed research workforce, and undercut one of VA’s best recruiting tools.

Furthermore, timely coordination with the National Institutes of Health – the nation’s leading biomedical research agency – is essential to restore any VA researchers’ canceled NIH grants. Our offices have heard from VA researchers whose studies on topics such as opioid use disorder among veterans have been halted due to NIH grant cancellations. We urge you to work with NIH to restore these grants and all other cancelled grants that funded studies to improve veterans’ health outcomes. We are similarly concerned that additional grants for VA researchers affiliated with academic institutions have been canceled, especially given VA’s refusal to answer repeated requests from our offices regarding the status of VA research at Harvard University. Reporting has noted that VA research projects associated with Harvard University – including studies on veteran suicide prevention, toxic exposure, and prostate cancer screening – have been proposed for termination. Veterans should not have to suffer due to this Administration’s political crusade on research and academia. We urge you to work to restore any such canceled grants without delay.

We are also concerned by reports that VA research studies may now have to be approved by political appointees before publication in academic journals. Please clarify to Congress, VA research employees, and veterans that no political appointees will be involved in approving or censoring the publication of research studies. Such clarification will support the historically bipartisan nature of VA research and help assure current and future VA researchers that VA will not censor the work of the talented staff it employs.

Scientific research takes years to build, and it cannot be treated like a spigot – turned on and off at will to serve the Trump Administration’s efforts to balance the budget on the backs of veterans. The consequences of your hiring freeze – and the resulting backlog in hiring VA research staff – could be severe and long-lasting. You still have the chance to correct course by immediately rehiring wrongly terminated researchers, working with OPM to quickly address the backlog in research staff hiring, coordinating with other agencies to restore all grants revoked from VA researchers, and assuring current and future VA researchers that their research will not be subject to political review.

We appreciate your attention to this critical issue and stand ready to support swift efforts that will allow VA research to thrive once more and continue to improve veteran health outcomes.
MIL OSI USA News –
July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Submissions: Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

HRAUN/Getty

A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

It’s not noble to refuse care

Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

4 guiding questions

Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:
- is it legal?
- is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?
- is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?
- is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?
Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

An unfair burden

While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

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

– ref. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003
MIL OSI –
July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Submissions: Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

HRAUN/Getty

A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

It’s not noble to refuse care

Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

4 guiding questions

Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:
- is it legal?
- is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?
- is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?
- is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?
Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

An unfair burden

While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

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

– ref. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003
MIL OSI –
July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Submissions: Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Getty Images

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion overnight to clarify state obligations related to climate change.

It will answer two urgent questions: what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to Earth’s atmosphere and environment?

ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding. But coming from the world’s highest court, they provide an authoritative opinion on serious issues that can be highly persuasive.

This advisory opinion marks the culmination of a campaign that began in 2019 when students and youth organisations in Vanuatu – one of the most vulnerable nations to climate-related impacts – persuaded their government to seek clarification on what states should be doing to protect them.

Led by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by 132 member states, including New Zealand and Australia, the United Nations General Assembly formally requested the advisory opinion in March 2023.

More than two years of public consultation and deliberation ensued, leading to this week’s announcement.

What to expect

Looking at the specific questions to be addressed, at least three aspects stand out.

First, the sources and areas of international law under scrutiny are not confined to the UN’s climate change framework. This invites the ICJ to consider a broad range of law – including trans-boundary environmental law, human rights law, international investment law, humanitarian law, trade law and beyond – and to draw on both treaty-related obligations and customary international law.

Such an encyclopaedic examination could produce a complex and integrated opinion on states’ obligations to protect the environment and climate system.

Second, the opinion will address what obligations exist, not just to those present today, but to future generations. This follows acknowledgement of the so-called “intertemporal characteristics” of climate change in recent climate-related court decisions and the need to respond effectively to both the current climate crisis and its likely ongoing consequences.

Third, the opinion won’t just address what obligations states have, but also what the consequences should be for nations:

where they, by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.

Addressing consequences as well as obligations should cause states to pay closer attention and make the ICJ’s advisory more relevant to domestic climate litigation and policy discussions.

Representatives from Pacific island nations gathered outside the International Court of Justice during the hearings.
Michel Porro/Getty Images

Global judicial direction

Two recent court findings may offer clues as to the potential scope of the ICJ’s findings.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its own advisory opinion on state obligations in response to climate change.

Explicitly connecting fundamental human rights with a healthy ecosystem, this opinion affirmed states have an imperative duty to prevent irreversible harm to the climate system. Moreover, the duty to safeguard the common ecosystem must be understood as a fundamental principle of international law to which states must adhere.

Meanwhile last week, an Australian federal court dismissed a landmark climate case, determining that the Australian government does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the consequences of climate change.

The court accepted the claimants face significant loss and damage from climate impacts and that previous Australian government policies on greenhouse gas emissions were not aligned with the best science to limit climate change. But it nevertheless determined that “matters of high or core government policy” are not subject to common law duties of care.

Whether the ICJ will complement the Inter-American court’s bold approach or opt for a more constrained and conservative response is not certain. But now is the time for clear and ambitious judicial direction with global scope.

Implications for New Zealand

Aotearoa New Zealand aspires to climate leadership through its Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. This set 2050 targets of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) to net zero, and biogenic methane by 25-47%.

However, actions to date are likely insufficient to meet this target. Transport emissions continue to rise and agriculture – responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions – is lightly regulated.

Although the government plans to double renewable energy by 2050, it is also in the process of lifting a 2018 ban on offshore gas exploration and has pledged $200 million to co-invest in the development of new fields.

Critics also point out the government has made little progress towards its promise to install 10,000 EV charging stations by 2030 while axing a clean-investment fund.

Although a final decision is yet to be made, the government is also considering to lower the target for cuts to methane emissions from livestock, against advice from the Climate Change Commission.

With the next global climate summit coming up in November, the ICJ opinion may offer timely encouragement for states to reconsider their emissions targets and the ambition of climate policies.

Most countries have yet to submit their latest emissions reduction pledges (known as nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. New Zealand has made its pledge, but it has been described as “underwhelming”. This may present a chance to adjust ambition upwards.

If the ICJ affirms that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, including trans-boundary impacts, New Zealand’s climate change policies and progress to date could face increased legal scrutiny.

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

– ref. Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question – https://theconversation.com/do-countries-have-a-duty-to-prevent-climate-harm-the-worlds-highest-court-is-about-to-answer-this-crucial-question-261396

MIL OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Congressional Democrats Join Union Workers to Announce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

Source: {United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bobby Scott (3rd District of Virginia)

Headline: Congressional Democrats Join Union Workers to Announce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

As originally released by the Committee on Education & Workforce, Democrats

WASHINGTON – Today, Ranking Member Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA-03), House Committee on Education and Workforce, Representative Judy Chu (D-CA.-28), and Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) joined union workers from the United Farm Workers (UFW), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and United Steelworkers to announce their bipartisan, bicameral legislation to implement federal enforceable workplace heat stress protections.

Co-leads of the legislation include Representative Alma Adams (D-NC-12), and Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV).

To address the increasing risks from extreme temperatures, the lawmakers introduced the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, legislation to protect the safety and health of indoor and outdoor workers who are exposed to dangerous heat conditions in the workplace.  The legislation would protect workers against occupational exposure to excessive heat by requiring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to establish an enforceable federal standard to protect workers in high-heat environments with commonsense measures like paid breaks in cool spaces, access to water, limitations on time exposed to heat, and emergency response for workers with heat-related illness. The bill also directs employers to provide training for their employees on the risk factors that can lead to heat illness and guidance on the proper procedures for responding to symptoms.

The bill is named in honor of Asunción Valdivia, who died in 2004 after picking grapes for 10 hours straight in 105-degree temperatures.  Mr. Valdivia fell unconscious, but instead of calling an ambulance, his employer told Mr. Valdivia’s son to drive his father home. On his way home, he died of heat stroke at the age of 53.

“This summer, Americans across the country are grappling with some of the hottest temperatures on record. Yet workers in this country still have no legal protection against excessive heat—one of the oldest, most serious, and most common workplace hazards. Heat illness affects workers in our nation’s fields, warehouses, and factories, and climate change is making the problem more severe every year,” said Ranking Member Scott.  “This legislation will require OSHA to issue a heat standard on a much faster track than the normal OSHA regulatory process.  I was proud to advance this important bill in 2022, and I urge Chairman Walberg and Committee Republicans to do so again this Congress.  Workers deserve nothing less, particularly as heat-related illnesses and deaths rise.”

“As we continue to experience record-breaking summer heat waves, we’re also seeing a distressing increase in cases of workers collapsing and even losing their lives due to excessive heat. I will never forget people like Asunción Valdivia or Esteban Chavez Jr., who passed away in Pasadena, California in 2022 after a day of delivering packages in 90-degree heat in a truck without air conditioning. Unfortunately, their tragic deaths were entirely preventable,” said Representative Chu. “Whether on a farm, driving a truck, or working in a warehouse, workers like Asunción and Esteban keep our country running while enduring some of the most difficult conditions—often without access to water or rest. To protect our workforce and save lives, we must pass this bill into law and establish comprehensive and enforceable federal standards addressing heat stress on the job.”

“Asunción Valdivia’s death was completely preventable, yet his story is sadly not unique.  As the planet continues to grow hotter, there is still no federally enforceable heat safety standard for workers.  That’s not just dangerous for the farm workers and construction workers who work all day outside in the sun — it’s also dangerous for the factory and restaurant workers in boiling warehouses and kitchens,”said SenatorPadilla. “Every family deserves to know that even on the hottest day, their loved one will come back home. A national heat safety standard would provide that peace of mind and finally give workers the safety they deserve.”

“As we face record temperatures, it has never been more important that we protect our workers facing extreme heat in the workplace,”said Representative Adams. “Last year, a North Carolina postal worker Wendy Johnson lost her life to heat illness after spending hours in the back of a postal truck on a 95-degree day with no air conditioning. Her death was entirely preventable, and Wendy should still be with us today. I’m proud to introduce this bill so we can honor her memory and ensure every worker has the protections from extreme heat that Wendy deserved.”

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was the warmest year on record for the United States.  The past decade, including 2024, was the hottest on record, marking a decade of extreme heat that will only get worse.  Heat-related illnesses can cause heat cramps, organ damage, heat exhaustion, stroke, and even death.  Between 1992 and 2017, heat stress injuries killed 815 U.S. workers and seriously injured more than 70,000.  The Washington Center for Equitable Growthestimates hot temperatures caused at least 360,000 workplace injuries in California from 2001 to 2018, or about 20,000 injuries a year. The failure to implement simple heat safety measures costs U.S. employers nearly $100 billion every year in lost productivity.

From 2011-2020, heat exposure killed at least 400 workers and caused nearly 34,000 injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work; both are likely vast underestimates.  Farm workers and construction workers suffer the highest incidence of heat illness.  And no matter what the weather is outside, workers in factories, commercial kitchens, and other workplaces, including ones where workers must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), can face dangerously high heat conditions all year round.

The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA-03) , Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC-12), Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI-01), Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ-03), Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA-44), Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-01), Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA-26), Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL-13), Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN-07), Rep. Troy A. Carter, Sr. (D-LA-02), Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX-35), Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL-06), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL-14), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX-20), Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL-20), Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY-09), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO-05), Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN-02), Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL-07), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO-01), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA-01), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-37), Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD-03), Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL-22), Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL-10), Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX-29), Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García (D-IL-04), Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY-10), Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA-34), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-05), Rep. Al Green (D-TX-09), Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT-05), Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV-04), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07), Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA-04), Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-08), Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY-17), Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM-03), Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA-49), Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA-08), Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI-02), Rep. John Mannion (D-NY-22), Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA-06), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY-03), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA-02), Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ-10), Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY-06), Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD-07), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI-04), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA-06), Rep. Frank J. Mrvan (D-IN-01), Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA-15), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-12), Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ-01), Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN-05), Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ-06), Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI-02), Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL-03), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08), Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA-29), Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA-25), Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA-38), Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA-05), Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI-03), Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA-09), Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM-01), Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA-10), Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA-39), Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI-13), Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS-02), Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV-01), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY-20), Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA-35), Rep. Derek T. Tran (D-CA-45), Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA-52), Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX-33), Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY-07), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-25), and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12).

To read the fact sheet on the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act is availablehere.

To read the section-by-section summary of the bill is available here.

To read the bill text of the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act here.

###

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Chu and Senator Padilla and Colleagues Join Union Workers to Introduce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)

Rep. Chu and Senator Padilla and Colleagues Join Union Workers to Introduce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

WATCH: Rep. Chu’s remarks on pushing for enforceable workplace heat stress protections after hottest year on record

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, following yet another extreme heat wave in California, U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28) and Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), joined by co-leads Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.-03), Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.-12), stood alongside union leaders, including Yaisy Villalobos of the United Farm Workers (UFW), Dorothy Bryant of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and Roy Houseman of the United Steelworkers (USW) to announce their bipartisan, bicameral legislation to establish an enforceable federal workplace heat protection standard.

To address the increasing risks from extreme temperatures, the lawmakers introduced the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, legislation to protect the safety and health of indoor and outdoor workers who are exposed to dangerous heat conditions in the workplace. The legislation would protect workers against occupational exposure to excessive heat by requiring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to establish an enforceable federal standard to protect workers in high-heat environments with common sense measures like paid breaks in cool spaces, access to water, limitations on time exposed to heat, and emergency response for workers with heat-related illness. The bill would also direct employers to provide training for their employees on the risk factors that can lead to heat illness and guidance on the proper procedures for responding to symptoms.

The bill is named in honor of Asunción Valdivia, who died in 2004 in California after picking grapes for 10 hours straight in 105-degree temperatures. Mr. Valdivia fell unconscious, but instead of calling an ambulance, his employer told Mr. Valdivia’s son to drive his father home. On his way home, he died of heat stroke at the age of 53.

Ever since the United Farm Workers first shared Asunción Valdivia’s story with her, Rep. Judy Chu has been a tireless advocate to protect workers from dangerous heat exposure. She helped pass into law a state heat standard for outdoor workers when she was in the California state legislature. And she will continue to introduce this federal legislation each session of Congress until workers finally have a federal law protecting them from heat-related illness, injury, or death while on the job.

“As we continue to experience record-breaking summer heat waves, we’re also seeing a distressing increase in cases of workers collapsing and even losing their lives due to excessive heat. I will never forget people like Asunción Valdivia or Esteban Chavez Jr., who passed away in Pasadena, California in 2022 after a day of delivering packages in 90-degree heat in a truck without air conditioning. Unfortunately, their tragic deaths were entirely preventable,” said Representative Chu. “Whether on a farm, driving a truck, or working in a warehouse, workers like Asunción and Esteban keep our country running while enduring some of the most difficult conditions—often without access to water or rest. To protect our workforce and save lives, we must pass this bill into law and establish comprehensive and enforceable federal standards addressing heat stress on the job.”

“Asunción Valdivia’s death was completely preventable, yet his story is sadly not unique. As the planet continues to grow hotter, there is still no federally enforceable heat safety standard for workers. That’s not just dangerous for the farm workers and construction workers who work all day outside in the sun — it’s also dangerous for the factory and restaurant workers in boiling warehouses and kitchens,” said Senator Padilla. “Every family deserves to know that even on the hottest day, their loved one will come back home. A national heat safety standard would provide that peace of mind and finally give workers the safety they deserve.”

“This summer, Americans across the country are grappling with some of the hottest temperatures on record. Yet workers in this country still have no legal protection against excessive heat—one of the oldest, most serious, and most common workplace hazards. Heat illness affects workers in our nation’s fields, warehouses, and factories, and climate change is making the problem more severe every year,” said Ranking Member Scott, House Committee on Education and Workforce. “This legislation will require OSHA to issue a heat standard on a much faster track than the normal OSHA regulatory process. I was proud to advance this important bill in 2022, and I urge Chairman Walberg and Committee Republicans to do so again this Congress. Workers deserve nothing less, particularly as heat-related illnesses and deaths rise.”

“Even as heat waves become more frequent, longer-lasting, and more severe, red state politicians are rolling back heat protections and child labor protections across the country. It’s not rocket science—you cannot be pro-worker if you are anti-heat protection,” said Senator Markey. “Our legislation would provide workers with basic, effective protections: access to water, access to shade, time limits on high heat exposure, and procedures for emergency medical response. Every worker deserves to know when they clock in that they will return home safe at the end of their shift. The thermometer is rising and the clock is ticking. Republicans want to sacrifice working Americans. Let’s save our workers instead.”

“As we face record temperatures, it has never been more important that we protect our workers facing extreme heat in the workplace,” said Representative Adams. “Last year, a North Carolina postal worker Wendy Johnson lost her life to heat illness after spending hours in the back of a postal truck on a 95-degree day with no air conditioning. Her death was entirely preventable, and Wendy should still be with us today. I’m proud to introduce this bill so we can honor her memory and ensure every worker has the protections from extreme heat that Wendy deserved.”

“From farmhands to construction workers, America’s essential workforce is doing important work while under extreme heat conditions,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “Temperatures continue to reach record highs in Nevada and across the United States. We must act now to protect our communities’ vital workers.”

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was the warmest year on record for the United States. The past decade, including 2024, was the hottest on record, marking a decade of extreme heat that will only get worse. Heat-related illnesses can cause heat cramps, organ damage, heat exhaustion, stroke, and even death. Farm workers and construction workers suffer the highest incidence of heat illness. And no matter what the weather is outside, workers in factories, commercial kitchens, and other workplaces, including ones where workers must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), can face dangerously high heat conditions all year round. From 2011-2020, heat exposure killed at least 400 workers and caused nearly 34,000 injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work; both are likely vast underestimates. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth estimates hot temperatures caused at least 360,000 workplace injuries in California from 2001 to 2018, or about 20,000 injuries a year. The failure to implement simple heat safety measures costs U.S. employers nearly $100 billion every year in lost productivity.

The Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act has the support of a broad coalition of over 250 groups, including: Rural Coalition, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, UNITE HERE!, AFSCME, Communication Workers of America, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Sierra Club, United Farm Workers, Farmworker Justice, Public Citizen, National Employment Law Project, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, United Auto Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Union of Concerned Scientists, United Steelworkers, National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, National Resources Defense Council, Service Employees International Union, American Lung Association, and Health Partnerships.

“Every worker safety rule in America is written in blood,” said UFW President Teresa Romero. “The UFW has been fighting for heat safety protections for decades. Over 20 years later, Asuncion Valdivia’s death still hurts. There are so many other farm workers — many whose names we do not know — who have also been killed by extreme heat on the job in the years since. Enough is enough. Every farm worker deserves access to water, shade, and paid rest breaks — it’s past time for Congress get this done.”

“Too many workers – including AFSCME members – have lost their lives on the job as a result of blistering heat waves and record-breaking temperatures,” said AFSCME President Lee Saunders. “As the number of heat-related illnesses and fatalities continue to rise, it is well past time we adopt nationwide safeguards to better protect the workers who maintain our infrastructure, keep our streets clean, harvest our food, and keep our economy moving. We at AFSCME thank Senator Padilla and Representative Chu for introducing the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, which will ensure essential workers who brave the heat can do their jobs safely and effectively, and most importantly, make it home alive.”

“For the Steelworkers Union, we represent workers in manufacturing settings and in a host of other areas where not only is it hot outside, but the areas that they work around are as hot as up to 3,000 degrees and they must wear protective equipment. The Asunción Valdivia Heat, Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act is important because it will provide a basic standard for not just outdoor, but indoor workplaces as well to ensure that there is proper rest breaks and the ability to stay cool. The Steelworkers are absolutely supportive of this bill and are going to work with Republicans and Democrats to ensure that heat illness is the last thing a worker should worry about,” said Roy Houseman, Legislative Director of United Steelworkers.

“Everyone deserves safe working conditions, but powerful corporations have not done enough to protect their workers from hot working environments, exacerbated by the climate crisis,” said Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO. “Extreme heat is increasingly causing indoor and outdoor workers to collapse or even die on the job, and our union family has already lost too many members to preventable, work-related heat illness. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must issue a strong heat rule, not a weak one, to ensure workers have specific protections they need and to be able to raise unsafe working conditions without fear of retaliation.”

“It’s long past time for meaningful legislation to protect Teamsters and other workers from the effects of prolonged heat exposure and dangerous heat levels while at work,” said Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien. “Paid breaks in cool spaces, access to water, and limitations on time exposed to heat are simple common sense steps that should be mandated immediately. Waiting to implement these measures is unacceptable and will result in the further loss of lives.”

“Workers in America are facing unprecedented dangers from climate-driven heat and extreme weather, and things are only getting worse. It is far past time for a strong national standard to protect workers from illness and death caused by exposure to extreme heat. The provisions mandated in this bill, including temperature triggers, acclimatization, water, shade and paid rest breaks, would save countless lives. They represent a common sense and common decency approach that employers could quickly adopt. American workers deserve no less, and they urgently need it. Today, OSHA is in the final stage of issuing a final rule on this issue. It is imperative that the rule maintain the integrity and high standards called for in the Asuncíon Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. We applaud Senators Padilla, Markey, and Cortez Masto and Representatives Chu, Adams, and Scott, as well as the dozens of Senators and Congresspersons who have joined them in this long effort. It’s time to bring a high quality, protective standard to the finish line for American workers,” said Ernesto Archila, Climate and Financial Regulation Policy Director, Public Citizen.

“Every summer high temperature records get broken in states across the country, and while public health officials urge residents to stay inside and stay safe millions of workers have to report for work. From fields to warehouses, airports to schools, construction sites to manufacturing plants, and many more industries, too many workers are at risk of not getting home safely at the end of the day due to exposure to heat on the job. We know how to prevent these dangers. In fact, both outdoor and indoor workers in states like Oregon, California, and Maryland have strong, enforceable protections in place already. And in Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota at least some categories of workers are being kept safe from heat. But millions labor in other states where there are no protections; worker safety is left to the federal government in these states, and absent strong rules workers are left to protect themselves and hope for the best. We must extend workplace protections from heat to all workers. The National Employment Law Project thanks Senator Padilla and Representative Chu, as well as the dozens of Senators and Congresspersons who have cosponsored the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act of 2025,” said Anastasia Christman, Senior Policy Analyst, National Employment Law Project.

This bill is originally cosponsored by 90 House Members, including Rep. Bobby Scott (VA-03)*, Rep. Alma Adams (NC-12)*, Rep. Gabe Amo (RI-01), Rep. Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Rep. Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Rep. Julia Brownley (CA-26), Rep. Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Rep. Andre Carson (IN-07), Rep. Troy A. Carter, Sr. (LA-02), Rep. Greg Casar (TX-35), Rep. Sean Casten (IL-06), Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14), Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05), Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02), Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-01), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Rep. Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Rep. Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), Rep. Lois Frankel (FL-22), Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10), Rep. Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Rep. Daniel Goldman (NY-10), Rep. Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Rep. Al Green (TX-09), Rep. Jahana Hayes (CT-05), Rep. Steven Horsford (NV-04), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02), Rep. Michael Lawler (NY-17), Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49), Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Rep. Seth Magaziner (RI-02), Rep. John Mannion (NY-22), Rep. Lucy McBath (GA-06), Rep. Betty McCollum (MN-04), Rep. Morgan McGarvey (KY-03), Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-02), Rep. LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Rep. Grace Meng (NY-06), Rep. Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04), Rep. Seth Moulton (MA-06), Rep. Frank J. Mrvan (IN-01), Rep. Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Rep. Donald Norcross (NJ-01), Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06), Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Rep. Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02), Rep. Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Rep. Luz Rivas (CA-29), Rep. Raul Ruiz (CA-25), Rep. Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA-38), Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Rep. Hillary Scholten (MI-03), Rep. Adam Smith (WA-09), Rep. Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), Rep. Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Rep. Mark Takano (CA-39), Rep. Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Rep. Dina Titus (NV-01), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Rep. Paul Tonko (NY-20), Rep. Norma Torres (CA-35), Rep. Derek T. Tran (CA-45), Rep. Juan Vargas (CA-52), Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33), Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-07), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

A one-pager on the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act is available here.

A section-by-section of the bill is available here.

Full text of the bill is available here.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: ICJ climate crisis ruling: Will world’s top court back Pacific-led call to hold governments accountable?

By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific

In 2019, a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world’s governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea — they would take the world’s governments to court.

They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries’ legal obligations under international law.

Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will today (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague.

More than 100 countries – including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific – have testified before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations. Image: UN Web TV/screengrab

If successful — and those involved are quietly confident they will be — it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage.

Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed.

“Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment,” said Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed out of those original students.

“For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration,” he said.

“[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law.”

More than 100 countries — including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific — have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations.

And now today they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city to hear if the judges of the world’s top court agree.

What is the case?
The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues.

In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to request the judges to weigh what exactly international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions.

Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court’s history.

That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, which say they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating.

These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries’ actions.

Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu . . . “This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.” Image: IISD-ENB

“I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,” Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year.

“Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned.”

But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change.

“We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case).

“Among them: whether States’ climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States’ climate obligations.”

Pacific youth climate activist at a demonstration at COP27 in November 2022 . . . “We are not drowning. We are fighting.” Image: Facebook/Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change

What could this mean?
Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over.

Still, the court’s opinion — if it falls in Vanuatu’s favour — could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings — both international and domestic — and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm.

An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

“This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial,” Prasad said.

In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have “legal obligations” to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring “legal consequences”.

At the Peace Palace today, they will find out from the court’s 15 judges.

“[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations,” said Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat in a statement ahead of the decision.

“I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: LEADER JEFFRIES: “HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE MARCHING US TOWARD A POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN THAT WILL HURT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

Know Your Immigration Rights

If you or a loved one encounter immigration enforcement officials, it is essential that you know your rights and have prepared your household for all possible outcomes.

Ask for a warrant: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. You do not have to open your door until you see a valid warrant to enter your home or search your belongings.

Your right to remain silent: The Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. You are not required to share any personal information such as your place of birth, immigration status or criminal history.

Always consult an attorney: You have a right to speak with an attorney. You do not have to sign anything or hand officials any documents without speaking to an attorney. Try to identify and consult one in advance.

The New York City Office of Civil Justice and the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) support a variety of free immigration legal services through local nonprofit legal organizations. To access these resources, dial 311 and say “Action NYC,” call the MOIA Immigration Legal Support Hotline at 800-354-0365 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or visit MOIA’s website.

Learn more here: KNOW YOUR IMMIGRATION RIGHTS – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Reed & Justice Introduce Bipartisan Strengthening Local Food Security Act

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to strengthen the nation’s food supply chain network, bolster economic opportunities for local farmers and food producers, and increase access to fresh, local nutritious food in underserved communities and schools, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Jim Justice (R-WV) teamed up to introduce the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S. 2338).
This new bill would create a permanent grant program for state and tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief programs and schools.
The bipartisan proposal would leverage government procurement and purchasing power to increase access to locally-sourced, fresh, healthy, and nutritious food in underserved communities and schools and in turn, help family farmers, fishermen, and local food producers grow their markets. This grant program would:
Support local economic development by creating new access to the hunger relief market for local farmers and fishermen, creating a new, reliable stream of orders for small, beginning, and underserved farmers, ranchers, and fishers, giving these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand.
Strengthen our domestic agriculture supply chain by investing in local food distribution. The bill would help build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems.
Combat food insecurity by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities and schools, feeding more families and helping ease the strain on the hunger relief system.
“Food prices are up and food banks are experiencing rising demand. We’ve got to feed those in need. The Strengthening Local Food Security Act makes family farmers and fishermen part of the solution, putting fresh, healthy food on the table in a cost-effective manner that strengthens the local economy too,” said Senator Jack Reed. “This bill will feed students and families and plant seeds of economic development for farmers, fishermen, and others throughout the nation’s food supply chain.”
“In West Virginia, we know the value of hard work and locally grown food. The Strengthening Local Food Security Act helps our farmers, ranchers, and fishermen get more of their local food onto more tables. It puts money back into our communities and keeps people fed. That’s a win-win all around. I look forward to working to get this done for our local producers, food banks, and schools,” Senator Jim Justice said.
The Strengthening Local Food Security Act is supported by a wide range of farmers, food hubs, coalitions, and business networks from across the country, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Farmers Union, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and the Farm Credit Council.
In Rhode Island, the bill is supported by several leading organizations, including: the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council.
“At a time when we’re serving more people than ever before, this type of legislation is critical, both for Rhode Island families and for our state’s economy,” said Melissa Cherney, incoming CEO of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank. “We’re honored to support Senator Reed’s bill.”
“It’s always a good time to invest in Rhode Island’s farmers. This bill will increase fairness by opening valuable wholesale markets to our smaller-scale producers. Even better, it does so while supporting the state’s economy and feeding our communities,” said Nessa Richman, Network Director of the Rhode Island Food Policy Council.
“Over 40 percent of people in Rhode Island do not have enough to eat. This bill helps to address that issue by partnering with local farmers as part of the solution. Farm Fresh RI is excited by the opportunity to strengthen the agricultural supply chain, support local economic development and provide nutritious food to children and food insecure families,” said Jesse Rye, Executive Director of Farm Fresh Rhode Island.
“Farm Credit applauds Senators Reed and Justice for their leadership in introducing the Strengthening Local Food Security Act of 2025. This bill is a strategic investment in American agriculture—supporting farmers, strengthening supply chains, and helping schools and communities access locally produced food. This bill will help boost regional economies and improve food security across the country,” said Christy Seyfert, President and CEO, Farm Credit Council.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: West Virginia Delegation Applauds Disaster Declaration Approval for Ohio and Marion Counties

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), as well as U.S. Reps. Carol Miller (W.Va.-01) and Riley Moore (W.Va.-02), applauded President Donald Trump’s approval of a Major Disaster Declaration and an Emergency Declaration for Ohio and Marion counties.

“The West Virginia Congressional Delegation is grateful to the Trump administration for the major disaster declaration and emergency declaration giving the approval of our state’s request for federal disaster aid. The flooding that occurred saw devastating loss of life and property, and we are glad that much-needed help is on the way to help these communities recover and rebuild. We commend the bravery of the first responders who sprang into action and the local leaders, churches, and charities who have been on the ground helping victims begin to rebuild their lives,” the lawmakers said.

The Major Disaster Declaration means that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance program will be able to provide financial aid to homeowners and renters affected by the June flooding.

The delegation sent a letter to President Trump and FEMA Acting Regional Administrator Hutchinson expressing strong support of the governor’s Major Disaster Declaration request in Ohio and Marion counties. You can view a copy of that letter here.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Cornyn, Coons, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Protect State and Local Judges
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) today introduced the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act, which would establish a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center to provide technical assistance, training, and threat monitoring for state and local judges and court personnel:

“With threats against judges and their families increasing at an alarming rate, more must be done to protect them,” said Sen. Cornyn. “This legislation would establish a much-needed resource center to identify and respond to bad actors, ensuring our nation’s courts and the Americans who work in them every day are safe.”

“Public servants should be able to do their jobs free from threats to themselves or their families – and that includes our state and local judges,” said Sen. Coons. “Our nation has seen increasing political violence that has too often ended in tragedy – threatening those just trying to serve their country and threatening our democratic system built on respect for the rule of law. I’m proud this bipartisan bill unanimously passed the Senate last year and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill to the president’s desk.”

“Judges perform a critical community service at every level of our justice system,” said Sen. Moran. “Regardless of how a judge rules on a case, any form of harassment or intimidation is unacceptable. In response to growing threats and attacks against members of the judiciary, this legislation would provide needed resources and support to local law enforcement tasked with protecting judges and courthouses.”

“Online mobs have increasingly lobbed violent threats against judges, including in Rhode Island, for ruling against the Trump administration. Judges and court officials must be able to conduct their work without fearing for their lives or their family’s safety,” said Sen. Whitehouse. “This timely bipartisan bill would bolster security at courthouses and judges’ homes to help protect the integrity of our judicial system. We also need to make sure that orchestration of threats is properly investigated.”

“We’re seeing an alarming surge of dangerous threats and actions targeting judges across this nation – stoking the flames of violence towards public servants and their families,” said Sen. Shaheen. “Our bipartisan legislation offers a commonsense solution to this troubling trend by establishing a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center to implement enhanced security measures to keep judges, their families and their staff out of harm’s way.”

U.S. Representatives Michael McCaul (TX-10) and Lucy McBath (GA-06) introduced companion legislation in the House.

Background:

The Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act would create a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center to:
- Provide technical assistance to state and local judges and court personnel around judicial security;
- Provide physical security assessments for courts, homes, and other facilities where judicial officers and staff conduct court-related business;
- Conduct research to identify, examine, and advance best practices around judicial security;
- And be housed within the existing State Justice Institute, a private nonprofit and nonpartisan corporation established by Congress in 1984.
The legislation is supported by the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ), Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal (CCJSCA), National Association for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers (NAPCO), National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), National Center for State Courts (NCSC), American Judges Association (AJA), National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and National Center for State Courts (NCSC).
MIL OSI USA News –
July 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: UK bans Gaza protest group – could the same thing happen in Australia?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

More than 100 people were arrested in the United Kingdom on the weekend for supporting Palestine Action, a protest group that opposes Britain’s support of Israel.

Palestine Action was recently proscribed as a terrorist organisation, placing it in the same category as Hamas, al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

Many of those arrested were simply holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”. They were predominantly aged over 60.

In recent weeks, an 83-year-old vicar, a former government lawyer and various pensioners have been taken into custody and could be jailed for up to 14 years if found guilty of belonging to the protest group.

Simply holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt with the words “Palestine Action” could be punishable with a six-month jail term.

The protesters say they refuse to be silenced:

If we cannot speak freely about the genocide that is occurring […], if we cannot condemn those who are complicit in it […] then the right to freedom of expression has no meaning, and democracy and human rights in this country are dead.

Police arresting protestors calling for the terrorism ban to be overturned.

So what is Palestine Acton and why is “middle England” up in arms over its designation as a terrorist group?

Activist network

Palestine Action is a UK-based activist network founded in 2020 with the stated aim of “ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

The group views the British government as complicit in Israeli war crimes in Gaza. It also aspires to halt UK arms exports through disruptive protests and vandalism.

Members have generally targeted Israeli-linked businesses, such as defence company Elbit Systems, by damaging equipment or blocking entrances.

Supporters include grassroots activists, civil liberties advocates, health professionals, clergy and prominent figures such as Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters.

Serious concerns

Palestine Action was officially proscribed in the UK on July 5, after campaigners sprayed paint into the engines of two Voyager aircraft at an air force base.

The final vote was overwhelming: 385 MPs supported the ban, while just 26 opposed it.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, membership, support, or public endorsement of a proscribed group is a criminal offence punishable by sentences up to 14 years.

The UK government argues the group’s actions exceeded legal protest and raised serious security concerns.

Since then, scores of people have been searched and arrested at rallies in support of Palestine Acton.

Blurring the lines

Critics, including Amnesty International, civil liberties groups and The Guardian editorial board warn the ban blurs the line between non-violent civil disobedience and terrorism. They argue it also threatens democratic dissent through a statutory abuse of power.

Counter-terrorism laws permit extraordinary interference in due process and other fundamental human rights protections. Consequently, they must always be used with the highest degree of restraint.

The UK already had legislation in place to deal with criminal damage and violent disorder.

United Nations legal and human rights experts have spoken out against treating the actions of protesters who damage property without the intent to injure people as terrorism:

According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.

Abuse of power

Designating Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation appears to be aimed at curtailing free expression, the assembly and association of those who support the protest action against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Placing it in the same legal category as Hamas seems designed to reduce public sympathy for the group.

Palestine Action is challenging its proscription in the UK High Court. Lawyers for the group argue the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has assessed the vast majority of its activities to be lawful:

On nature and scale, the home secretary [Yvette Cooper] accepts that only three of Palestine Action’s at least 385 actions would meet the statutory definition of terrorism […] itself a dubious assessment.

The lawyers further argue proscription was “repugnant” and an “authoritarian abuse of power”.

Australian version?

There are no indications from the intelligence community that any direct affiliate of Palestine Action (UK) operates in Australia.

However, there are pro-Palestinian activist organisations, including a Palestine Action Group Sydney, which is part of the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN).

Broader solidarity movements such as Students for Palestine, are active in protests on university campuses and against arms shipments to Israel.

Domestic terrorism powers

Traditional boundaries between “activism”, “extremism”, “hate-crime” and “terrorism” are rapidly blurring in Australia.

The attorney general may list (“proscription” is a UK term) any organisation as a “terrorist organisation” if they are satisfied it is “advocating terrorism”. This would mean criminalising the expression of support, instruction, or praise of terrorist acts or offences.

The latest addition to the 31-member list is Terrorgram, an online terrorism advocacy chatroom.

Australia’s extensive definition of “terrorist act”, currently under review, expressly excludes

advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action and which is not intended to cause serious or life-endangering harm or death or to create a serious risk to the safety or health of the public.

This suggests an Australian version of a Palestine Action undertaking similar conduct to its UK cousin would not meet the legal threshold for listing.

However, the recent Terrorgram listing makes reference to advocacy for “attacks on minority groups, critical infrastructure and specific individuals”.

This suggests the UK and Australian governments are becoming more aligned in interpreting “violent” protest to include violence against property, rather than just against people.

Short of listing, a significant suite of investigative, coercive and preventative executive exists that could be deployed if a similar organisation appears in Australia.

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

– ref. UK bans Gaza protest group – could the same thing happen in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/uk-bans-gaza-protest-group-could-the-same-thing-happen-in-australia-261562

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Call for information – Aggravated robbery – Daly River Region

Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

The NT Police Force are calling for information in relation to an aggravated robbery that occurred in the Daly River Region on Tuesday morning.

Around 8am, police received reports that an 84-year-old male had been assaulted and had his vehicle stolen approximately 1 kilometre from the Woolianna Road and Daly River Road intersection.

It is alleged that a group of four youths threw rocks at an 84-year-old and his vehicle after her refused to give them a lift.

The victim exited his Toyota Hilux, and one male youth entered the vehicle and attempted to drive away from the location, but the vehicle stalled. At this time the victim attempted to remove the keys from the Hilux; however, the group allegedly began assaulting him before stealing the vehicle and fleeing the scene.

Daly River Police attended, and the 84-year-old male was transported to the Daly River Clinic for assessment with minor injuries.

The vehicle and the alleged offenders remain outstanding, and investigations are ongoing.

Police urge anyone with information to make contact on 131 444, quoting reference number NTP2500073955. Anonymous reports can be made through Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via https://crimestoppersnt.com.au/.

MIL OSI News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Relief to Arkansas Small Businesses, Private Nonprofits and Residents Affected by April Storms and Flooding

Source: United States Small Business Administration

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to Arkansas small businesses, private nonprofits and residents affected by severe storms, tornadoes and flooding occurring April 2‑22. The SBA issued a disaster declaration in response to a request received from Gov. Sarah Sanders on July 18.

The disaster declaration includes the Arkansas counties of Cross, Hempstead, Lawrence and Little River.

Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.

Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.

Applicants may be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include insulating pipes, walls and attics, weather stripping doors and windows, and installing storm windows to help protect property and occupants from future disasters.

SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and private nonprofit organizations impacted by financial losses directly related to this disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.

EIDLs are for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the business did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

“One distinct advantage of SBA’s disaster loan program is the opportunity to fund upgrades reducing the risk of future storm damage,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “I encourage businesses and homeowners to work with contractors and mitigation professionals to improve their storm readiness while taking advantage of SBA’s physical damage loans.”

Interest rates are as low as 4% for businesses, 3.625% for nonprofits and 2.75% for homeowners and renters, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

The SBA encourages applicants to submit their loan applications promptly. Applications will be prioritized in the order they are received, and the SBA remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible.

To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

The deadline to return physical damage applications is Sept. 22, 2025. The deadline to return economic injury applications April 22, 2026.

###

About the U.S. Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: WATCH: Padilla Sets the Record Straight on Trump Administration’s Harmful Mass Deportation Agenda

US Senate News:

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

WATCH: Padilla Sets the Record Straight on Trump Administration’s Harmful Mass Deportation Agenda

Highlighted testimony from Alejandro Barranco — a veteran and the son of Narciso, who was violently detained by masked CBP agents in Orange County

WATCH: Padilla criticizes Trump and Republicans for backtracking on pledge to target violent criminalsWASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, joined a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing to set the record straight on President Trump and Stephen Miller’s cruel mass deportation campaign, blasting the Administration for intentionally stoking fear and scapegoating immigrants.
Padilla emphasized that far from the Trump Administration’s stated plan to target violent criminals, less than 10 percent of immigrants whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has taken into custody have serious criminal convictions, and there has been a staggering 500 percent increase in the number of arrests of noncitizens without criminal records. He stressed that these ICE sweeps often illegally profile and target people based on their race, accents, or occupation, while hurting the economy by ripping away farm workers, service industry employees, and other essential workers.
Padilla called out Republicans for attempting to distract from the sharp turn in public opinion away from the President’s immigration policy by relitigating complaints from the Biden presidency more than six months into Trump’s second term. An all-time record 79 percent of Americans believe immigration is a good thing for the country.
He also criticized the $150 billion funding surge to carry out Trump’s enforcement agenda in Republicans’ billionaire-first reconciliation bill, underscoring that ICE’s budget is now larger than the budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Prisons combined.
“It’s clear why we’re here today: we’re here because Donald Trump is scapegoating immigrants,” Padilla said in committee. “It’s always been his outlet. This is their break-glass-in-case-of-emergency option when public sentiment turns against them and their agenda. It hasn’t been about only targeting violent criminals and it’s certainly not about fixing or modernizing our immigration system.”
Padilla questioned three witnesses on the Trump Administration’s harmful immigration enforcement. He asked Deborah Fleischaker, a former ICE Acting Chief of Staff and longtime Department of Homeland Security official, to set the record straight that the Biden Administration encouraged ICE to do its job to detain violent criminals. He also highlighted the need for additional funding beyond immigration enforcement to support the hiring of more immigration judges and asylum officers.
Padilla heard further from Alejandro Barranco — a Marine veteran and the eldest son of Narciso Barranco, who was violently detained by masked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Orange County — about the dangers of indiscriminate immigration enforcement, including sweeping up hardworking people with no history of violent crime.
PADILLA: The way they present it, the way they talk about President Biden’s administration and prior Democratic administrations is like it was never a priority for Democratic administrations to go after criminals, and that Democrats and Democratic administrations just didn’t care about the presence of dangerous people in our communities. Simply not true. … Ms. Fleischaker, you were in ICE leadership. In your view, in your experience, did the Biden Administration ever restrain ICE from pursuing serious criminals?
FLEISCHAKER: We absolutely did not stop ICE agents from enforcing the law and going after public safety threats. In fact, we encouraged them to do so. We very much want to want to find and arrest public safety threats in the community. […]
PADILLA: I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the idea of rooting out the ‘worst of the worst,’ even if we disagree over what immigration policy should be, but I believe it’s unacceptable that these raids are so indiscriminate that they end up sweeping up people with no history of violent crime, hardworking people trying to give their children a better life, like Alejandro’s father, Narciso. Alejandro, question is for you. … Is there anything else that you would like to share about the cruelty with which your father was treated or what your family’s gone through?
BARRANCO: I think that the way they treated him and the way they handled that situation was very unprofessional. It showed men who were not trained. It doesn’t seem like it. … They were running with guns in their hand, with fingers on the trigger, pointing it at civilian vehicles. And honestly, I don’t think that’s for the best of public safety, and I believe that they should have better training and go out and chase after the real criminals.
PADILLA: Well, I couldn’t agree more, and the more resources, personnel, funding, and otherwise that’s directed at again, just broad-based enforcement is less focus, less prioritization of those violent criminals that we know are out there, the Administration knows are out there, but they’re not the clear priority or focus.
Padilla also expressed concern about indiscriminate immigration raids creating widespread fear, keeping people home from work, businesses, church, and public spaces, while limiting the reporting of crimes. He heard from Dr. Giovanni Veliz, a retired Minneapolis Police Department Commander, about the importance of building trust with immigrant communities to combat crime and keep police officers safe.
Video of Senator Padilla’s opening remarks is available here, and his questions are available here.
More information on the hearing is available here.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Federated Farmers Statement on Greenpeace

Source: Federated Farmers

Federated Farmers Statement: Greenpeace vandals must lose charitable status

Federated Farmers is renewing its call for Greenpeace to be stripped of its charitable status immediately, following the extreme activist group’s latest illegal publicity stunt.

“Greenpeace need to be held accountable for their repeated illegal activity and the spread of harmful misinformation,” Southland Federated Farmers president Jason Herrick says.

“How can they be recognised as a charity when they’re breaking all kinds of laws trespassing on private property, vandalising public property, and intimidating the community?

“Last night’s vandalism of the world-famous trout statue in Gore reinforces why these activists need to lose their status as a charity. I think it’s a total abuse of charitable status.”

Herrick says Greenpeace’s vandalism of the statue and welcome sign is a shameless attempt to divide the small rural community and spread anti-farming propaganda.

“These activists are total cowards who are slinking around in the shadows vandalising property under the cover of darkness,” Herrick says.

“There’s a reason they’ve done this at night. They knew it was dodgy behaviour – and that they’d never get away with it in Gore during daylight hours.

“We’re a tight-knit community down here in Southland. Farming plays a huge role in not only our local economy, but in our social fabric too.

“There’s no way we’re going to put up with this nonsense. Greenpeace should hang their heads in shame.”

In April, Federated Farmers called for the Government to immediately strip Greenpeace of its charitable status after the group’s illegal occupation of Port Taranaki.

Charitable status in New Zealand is intended to support organisations that advance public benefit through education, relief of poverty, and other recognised charitable purposes.

Under the Charities Act, organisations must operate for the public good and not primarily serve political or advocacy purposes.

Herrick says he sees Greenpeace’s ongoing illegal activity as clear evidence that it no longer meets these criteria for charitable status.

“There are plenty of amazing, honest charities doing fantastic work out there – but Greenpeace is not one of them.

“It’s become little more than an extreme activist group that’s disrupting legitimate businesses and spreading harmful misinformation – repeatedly and deliberately.”

Federated Farmers lodged a formal complaint with Charities Services in April, requesting a formal inquiry into Greenpeace’s conduct and eligibility for charitable status.

A copy was also sent to Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Hon Louise Upston and Minister of Internal Affairs Hon Brooke van Velden.

The complaint focuses on Greenpeace’s repeated involvement in premeditated unlawful protest activity.

That includes the 2024 protest at Fonterra’s Te Rapa dairy factory where seven individuals were arrested, and last year’s occupation of Straterra’s Wellington office, where five were arrested during a staged lockdown.

“We urge Charities Services to act decisively on our existing complaint and strip Greenpeace of its charitable status quickly,” Herrick says.

“I can’t see any way they meet the requirements for registration under the Charities Act 2005.

“Hardworking Kiwi taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise their illegal attacks and extremist political agendas through tax breaks for their donors.

“Law-breaking groups cannot hide behind charitable privileges while threatening livelihoods with misinformation about farming.”

Herrick says it’s not just Greenpeace that needs to be held accountable for how it’s operating as a charity.

“I think Charities Services and the Government need to be held accountable too and answer some tough, but fair, questions about how this rort of the rules is being allowed to continue.

“There is absolutely no way Greenpeace should be allowed to constantly break the law and still be recognised as a charity.”

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Ministers Burke and Dillon Initiate Public Consultation on Review of Employment Permit Occupations lists
Source: Government of Ireland – Department of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation

23rd July 2025

Peter Burke, Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, and Alan Dillon, Minister of State for Small Business, Retail and Employment, have today announced the opening of the consultation period inviting submissions from stakeholders on the status of occupations on the employment permits Occupations Lists. The Lists are used to administer Ireland’s employment permits policy. They consist of the Ineligible Occupations List – occupations for which there is an adequate supply of labour and skills with Ireland and the EEA, and for which an employment permit will not be issued, and the Critical Skills Occupations List – occupations in short supply in Ireland and across the EEA.

The last review of the occupations lists took place in 2023, and resulted in 11 additional roles being placed on the Critical Skills Occupations List, and 32 roles being made eligible for a General Employment Permit.

Minister Burke said:

“I am delighted to launch this next review of the eligible occupations for employment permits. At a time of full employment, with over 2.81 million people at work, and with 90,000 new jobs created in the last year, it is vital that we continue to have a strong and flexible employment permits system to allow non-EEA nationals to fill the skill and labour gaps we cannot access in Ireland or Europe and to ensure our economy remains competitive.

“As demonstrated by the changes made to the employment permit system over the last year, the system is responsive to the needs of the sectors and industries it serves. This full review will allow us to ensure the system remains up-to-date in a way that serves both workers and employers.”

Minister Dillon added:

“Our economic migration policy accommodates the arrival of non-EEA nationals to fill skills and labour gaps in the domestic economy in the short to medium term. These workers are a vital part of the Irish economy. My Department’s reviews of the system promote an integrated approach to address these labour market deficiencies in the longer term and ensure we can continue to meet our labour needs.

“Where employers or stakeholders are facing challenges in recruiting a specific occupation and believe it should be eligible for an employment permit, or believe a certain occupation should move onto the critical skills list, now is their opportunity to share this feedback.

“With the consultation running over the summer period, there is plenty of time for interested employers and sectors who use the employment permits system to provide their feedback. Employer’s observations are vital in helping inform the department on how the list system is operating and where it can be improved.”

The submission process is an opportunity for stakeholders to provide additional information and potentially different perspectives on the nature and extent of skill shortages.

Submissions will be accepted through the online consultation form made available on the Department’s website and will be open from 23 July to 19 September.

Notes for Editor

Background

The Employment Permits System

The Irish State’s general policy is to promote the sourcing of labour and skills needs from within the workforce of Ireland, the European Union and other EEA states. Policy in relation to applications for employment permits remains focused on facilitating the recruitment from outside the EEA of highly skilled personnel, where the requisite skills cannot be met by normal recruitment or by training. Employment permit policy is part of the response to addressing skills deficits which exist and are likely to continue into the medium term, but it is not intended over the longer term to act as a substitute for meeting the challenge of up-skilling the State’s resident workforce, with an emphasis on the process of lifelong learning, and on maximising the potential of EEA nationals to fill our skills deficits.

The Occupations Lists

The Employment Permits system is designed to attract highly skilled workers from outside the EEA to Ireland, to meet skills demand in the economy where those skills can’t be accessed through the resident labour force. For the purposes of the employment permits system, occupations fall into three categories:
- Occupations listed on the Critical Skills Occupations List are highly skilled professional roles that are in high demand and are not always available in the resident labour force. Occupations on this list are eligible for a Critical Skills Employment Permit (CSEP) and include roles such as medicine, ICT, sciences, finance and business. Special “fast-track” conditions attach to this permit type including the eligibility to apply to the Department of Justice for family members to accompany the permit holder immediately; and after two years may apply to the Department of Justice for permission to work without the requirement for an employment permit.
- Ineligible occupations are those with evidence suggesting there are sufficient Irish/EEA workers to fill such vacancies. Employment permits are not granted for these occupations.
- Every other job in the labour market, where an employer cannot find a worker, is eligible for an employment permit. For General Employment Permits, Seasonal Employment Permits and Contract for Services Employment Permits the employer is required to undertake a Labour Market Needs Test. If no-one suitable applies for the job, the employer is free to apply for an employment permit. Occupations such as these may be skills of a more general nature and are typically eligible for a General Employment Permit (GEP). This permit type is renewable and after five years the applicant may apply to the Department of Justice for long term residency permission.
The Critical Skills and Ineligible Occupations Lists Review

It is vital that the employment permits scheme is responsive to changes in economic circumstances and labour market conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to review the Critical Skills and Ineligible Occupations Lists periodically, in accordance with the changing needs of the labour market.

The review process utilises research undertaken by the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (EGFSN) and other experts in the labour market, including the Skills and Labour Market Research Unit (SLMRU) at SOLAS. The Department also invites submissions from industry representatives, other Government Departments and any other stakeholders who might have a case to make, via a periodic open consultation on the Department’s website. The Department also seeks the observations of the Inter-Departmental Group which oversees the review process.

An occupation may be considered for inclusion on the critical skills occupation list or removal from the ineligible lists provided that:
- shortage exists across the occupation, despite attempts by industry to train and there are no suitable Irish/EEA nationals available to undertake the work;
- development opportunities for Irish/EEA nationals are not undermined;
- genuine skills shortage exists and that it is not a recruitment or retention problem; and
- the Government education, training, employment and economic development policies are supported.
Submission process

As part of this review process, submissions are sought from employers, representative bodies, Government Departments, Agencies, and other interested parties relating to occupations currently included on or absent from the lists.

The submission process is an opportunity for stakeholders to provide additional information and potentially different perspectives on the nature and extent of skill shortages. Stakeholder submissions are a vital source of information, helping inform the Department’s final assessment of the status of occupations.

ENDS

Back to Department News

Back to Top
MIL OSI Europe News –
July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Cutting-edge personalised treatments, made while you wait, will deliver specialised care to patients more quickly
Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

Press release

Cutting-edge personalised treatments, made while you wait, will deliver specialised care to patients more quickly

New regulations effective today will make it faster and easier for cutting-edge cancer treatments and personalised gene therapies to be made right where patients are treated.
Patients will receive faster access to life-saving, personalised treatments made at their hospital, clinic or near their homes instead of waiting weeks for therapies manufactured hundreds of miles away, under new UK legislation that comes into force today (23 July).

This world first regulations, introduced by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), allows breakthrough personalised medicines to be prepared in small or individual batches – bringing care closer to the patient.

A cancer patient could now have their immune cells collected, modified to fight their specific cancer, and returned within days rather than months. A child with a rare genetic disorder could receive a freshly prepared therapy with only minutes of shelf life, made and given on the spot.

The change will cut waiting times where every hour counts, help free up NHS beds, and improve access to innovative therapies that were previously out of reach.

Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said:

“This world-first legislation is a game-changer for patients. Cancer treatments tailored in days, not months. Life-saving therapies made at your bedside, not hundreds of miles away.

“Our Plan for Change promised to build an NHS fit for the future. Today we’re delivering on that pledge by bringing cutting-edge care directly to patients when they need it most.

“We are turning around our NHS with waiting lists at their lowest for two years – this type of therapy means patients can be treated and return home more quickly.”

Science Minister Lord Vallance said:

“This world-first framework gives the NHS and innovators a clear, safe way to bring advanced treatments from the lab to the patient’s bedside. It’s a powerful example of how smart regulation can help more patients benefit from the best of British science.

“We’re determined to clear the path for more health innovation of this sort. Our recently-published Life Sciences Sector Plan sets out our clear vision to do just that – with a view to unlocking growth, investment, and delivering a stronger, prevention-focused healthcare system.”

MHRA Chief Executive Lawrence Tallon said:

“Patients will now receive highly personalised treatments more quickly and nearer to their bedside, with the same rigorous standards as all medicines.

“This is especially important where every hour matters, or where a treatment is so specific it simply can’t be made in advance.

“It’s a landmark moment that opens the door to a future where highly personalised treatment – made for one person, in one place, at one time – becomes part of routine care.

“The UK is leading the world in this next generation of medical innovation, and as the UK regulator for medicines and medical devices, we’re determined to play our role in providing the supportive regulatory framework to help our health partners and medicines innovators bring can bring these new treatments to patients.”

From months to days

Until now, personalised treatments such as CAR-T cancer therapy had to be sent to specialised manufacturing facilities often far away, causing long delays. In some cases, patients became too unwell to receive the therapy in time, or the medicine’s short shelf life meant it couldn’t be delivered at all.

Hospitals were only able to offer these treatments through complicated, one-off arrangements, creating uncertainty for patients and doctors about whether treatment could go ahead.

From today, hospitals, ambulances and local care settings in the UK have a pathway to carry out the final manufacturing steps for these personalised or time-sensitive treatments on-site, using clear, regulated protocols. This mirrors how chemotherapy or antibiotics are prepared locally, but with the same strict safeguards for more advanced therapies. A central control site will provide detailed instructions and oversight, while hospitals complete the process closer to the patient.

Supporting care closer to home

The legislation also supports the use of mobile manufacturing units – offering a safer alternative for patients too unwell to travel, or whose weakened immune systems mean hospital visits carry extra risk.

This change enables care to be delivered where it’s most appropriate, including community settings or even at home, supporting the NHS ambition, as set out in the 10 Year Health Plan for England, to expand ‘hospital at home’ models such as virtual wards.

Backed by law – and leading the world

The legislation, known as The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025, makes the UK the first country in the world to introduce a dedicated legal framework for medicines made at the point of care.

Following strong support during the public consultation, the framework covers a broad range of innovative products, including cell and gene therapies, tissue-engineered treatments, 3D printed products, blood products, and medicinal gases.

To support implementation, the MHRA published detailed guidance earlier this year and has worked closely with other UK regulators, the NHS, industry, academics and healthcare professionals to ensure clarity around how the legislation applies in practice. Today, the MHRA has added information on how to apply for a decentralised manufacture designation. Companies can also access MHRA scientific advice at any stage of development.

The move strengthens the UK’s leadership in safe, decentralised manufacturing and is expected to boost research, trials and patient access to cutting-edge treatments. The MHRA is also working internationally to support similar changes in other countries, recently being centrally involved in the first global workshop on point-of-care manufacturing, through the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA).

Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult Chief Executive Matthew Durdy said:

“This change demonstrates how the MHRA is leading in the UK’s commitment to being at the forefront of modern healthcare, innovation and regulation. The MHRA has recognised that some practices are better with more flexibility, and that in a technology enabled world which allows better training, information and communication, flexibility can be enabled without compromising safety.

“This is not just a step forward for innovative medicines such as cell and gene therapies, it is a step towards enabling truly personalised medicine. We applaud this change introduced by the MHRA and look forward to a future where more patients can receive therapeutics tailored to their needs, quickly, cost-effectively and sustainably.”

NHS England National Director for Specialised Commissioning John Stewart said:

“The NHS in England was the first health system in Europe to adopt personalised cancer medicines and has since built a strong track record as an early leader in the use of potentially curative gene therapies.

“The advanced treatments of today, will become the everyday healthcare of tomorrow, and forward-thinking regulatory changes like this will help enable the NHS to evolve patient care to deliver complex treatments to more people, in more places.”

Notes to editors

The regulations will take effect across the UK from 23 July 2025. For more information, visit The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025

Supporting guidance and updates can be accessed at Decentralised manufacture hub – GOV.UK

Products manufactured at the point of care are eligible for support through the MHRA ILAP pathway, which is in place to accelerate time to market and facilitate patient access.

Government response to consultation on proposals to support the regulation of medicines manufactured at the Point of Care – GOV.UK

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for regulating all medicines and medical devices in the UK by ensuring they work and are acceptably safe. All our work is underpinned by robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits justify any risks.

The MHRA is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care.

For media enquiries, please contact the newscentre@mhra.gov.uk, or call on 020 3080 7651.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)

Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Published 23 July 2025
MIL OSI United Kingdom –
July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville, Cruz Introduce Bill Targeting Funders of Violent Interstate Protests

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in introducing the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (Stop FUNDERs) Act. The legislation would add rioting to the list of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) predicate offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to use the full suite of RICO tools against entities who fund or coordinate violent interstate riots, such as the ones recently seen in Los Angeles, California.

“77 million Americans voted for President Trump and his America First policy agenda – and that includes arresting and deporting illegal aliens,” said Senator Tuberville.“Democrats don’t like that – so they are rioting in the streets and violently attacking law enforcement officers. This cannot stand. My colleagues and I are introducing a bill to make sure the Department of Justice has the tools it needs to go after anti-American terrorist groups and their funders who are protecting illegal rapists, murderers, and criminals. We have to cut these violent riots off at the source. The adults are back in charge, and law and order will prevail.”

“Every American has the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but not to commit violence,” said Senator Cruz.“Domestic NGOs and foreign adversaries fund and use riots in the United States to undermine the security and prosperity of Americans. My legislation will give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to hold them accountable, and I urge colleagues to pass it expeditiously.”

U.S. Senators Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Lee (R-UT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) also joined the legislation. U.S. Representative Beth Van Duyne (R-TX-24) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This bill is supported by Heritage Action and National Right to Work Committee.

Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Springfield Man Sentenced to 25 Years for Methamphetamine Trafficking, Illegal Firearms

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Springfield, Mo., man was sentenced in federal court today for his role in a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of methamphetamine in Greene County, Mo., and possessing firearms.

Russell Lee Deck, Jr., 47, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes to a total sentence of 25 years in federal prison without parole, followed by three years of supervised release.

On Nov. 8, 2024, Deck pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Deck admitted he participated in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Greene County from June 1 to Aug. 25, 2022, and to possessing firearms.

The drug trafficking conspiracy ended when a Springfield police officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop on Deck on Aug. 18, 2022. When the officer pulled behind Deck’s vehicle in a hotel parking lot and activated his lights, Deck put the car in reverse and rammed the officer’s vehicle. The officer got out of his vehicle, pulled his duty weapon, and ordered the vehicle’s occupants to stop. Instead, Deck drove forward, then put his vehicle in reverse and rammed the officer’s vehicle again before fleeing the parking lot.

A police pursuit ensued, with Deck driving at a high rate of speed in a residential neighborhood, while Deck’s passenger shot at the officer’s vehicle. The pursuit ended when Deck crashed into a Jeep SUV at an intersection. While the Jeep suffered significant damage, the innocent driver appeared to be unharmed. Deck’s passenger fled the crash on foot and was arrested after Greene County deputies found the passenger hiding under a car. Shell casings and damage from gunfire were located throughout the neighborhood.

Officers removed Deck from the wrecked vehicle and found two bags containing a total of 46.2 grams of methamphetamine in Deck’s pockets. Inside Deck’s vehicle, officers found two handguns on the front passenger side floorboard.

Deck’s passenger who fired the shots during the pursuit, Blake Basten, was sentenced in federal court to a total sentence of 10 years for two counts of felon in possession of a firearm on Feb. 27, 2024.

Deck’s co-defendant in the drug trafficking conspiracy, Justin Hollingsworth, was sentenced to a total sentence of 18 years for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on June 24, 2024.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Wan. It was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.

Project Safe Neighborhoods

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

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Springfield Man Sentenced to 25 Years for Methamphetamine Trafficking, Illegal Firearms

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Springfield, Mo., man was sentenced in federal court today for his role in a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of methamphetamine in Greene County, Mo., and possessing firearms.

Russell Lee Deck, Jr., 47, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes to a total sentence of 25 years in federal prison without parole, followed by three years of supervised release.

On Nov. 8, 2024, Deck pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Deck admitted he participated in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Greene County from June 1 to Aug. 25, 2022, and to possessing firearms.

The drug trafficking conspiracy ended when a Springfield police officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop on Deck on Aug. 18, 2022. When the officer pulled behind Deck’s vehicle in a hotel parking lot and activated his lights, Deck put the car in reverse and rammed the officer’s vehicle. The officer got out of his vehicle, pulled his duty weapon, and ordered the vehicle’s occupants to stop. Instead, Deck drove forward, then put his vehicle in reverse and rammed the officer’s vehicle again before fleeing the parking lot.

A police pursuit ensued, with Deck driving at a high rate of speed in a residential neighborhood, while Deck’s passenger shot at the officer’s vehicle. The pursuit ended when Deck crashed into a Jeep SUV at an intersection. While the Jeep suffered significant damage, the innocent driver appeared to be unharmed. Deck’s passenger fled the crash on foot and was arrested after Greene County deputies found the passenger hiding under a car. Shell casings and damage from gunfire were located throughout the neighborhood.

Officers removed Deck from the wrecked vehicle and found two bags containing a total of 46.2 grams of methamphetamine in Deck’s pockets. Inside Deck’s vehicle, officers found two handguns on the front passenger side floorboard.

Deck’s passenger who fired the shots during the pursuit, Blake Basten, was sentenced in federal court to a total sentence of 10 years for two counts of felon in possession of a firearm on Feb. 27, 2024.

Deck’s co-defendant in the drug trafficking conspiracy, Justin Hollingsworth, was sentenced to a total sentence of 18 years for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on June 24, 2024.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Wan. It was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.

Project Safe Neighborhoods

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

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Springfield Man Indicted for Assaulting Postal Worker

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Springfield, Mo., man has been indicted by a federal grand jury for assaulting a postal worker.

Courtney J. Ellis, 45, was charged today in a one count indictment with assaulting an employee of the U.S. Postal Service while they were performing their official duties. Today’s indictment replaces a felony criminal complaint filed June 23, 2025.

According to an affidavit filed in support of the original complaint, on June 18, 2025, Ellis struck the victim on the head with a wooden board while he was delivering mail to Ellis’s address. The victim, who was delivering mail along that route for the first time, was wearing a USPS uniform and driving a marked USPS delivery vehicle. After striking the victim, Ellis yelled that he didn’t belong in the neighborhood and followed him back to his vehicle where he continued to yell at and threaten the victim until he drove away.

The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall D. Eggert. It was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Bridgeport Man Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison for Drug and Firearm Offenses

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that ERIC HERMAN, 32, of Bridgeport, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden in New Haven to 96 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for drug distribution and firearm possession offenses.

According to court documents and statements made in court, following two fatal overdoses involving fentanyl in 2021, both of which are believed to be connected to Herman, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Bridgeport High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force and Stratford Police Department began investigating Herman’s drug trafficking activities. In May and June 2022, investigators made two controlled purchases of fentanyl, heroin, and crack cocaine from Herman.

Herman was arrested on September 15, 2022. At the time of his arrest, he possessed a distribution quantity of cocaine, a loaded 9mm “ghost gun” with a laser sight attached, and additional rounds of ammunition.

Herman’s criminal history includes state felony convictions for drug and firearm offenses. It is a violation of federal law for a person previously convicted of a felony offense to possess a firearm or ammunition that has moved in interstate or foreign commerce.

Herman has been detained since his arrest. On March 24, 2025, he pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of, cocaine base (“crack”), fentanyl, and heroin; one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine; and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon.

Herman pleaded guilty in state court to narcotics and manslaughter charges stemming from an overdose death investigation and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, suspended after eight years, and five years of probation. Judge Bolden ordered Herman’s federal sentence to run concurrently with his state sentence.

The DEA’s HIDTA Task Force includes personnel from the DEA Bridgeport Resident Office, the Connecticut State Police, and the Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk, Stamford, and Stratford Police Departments. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen L. Peck.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Special Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Violating an Arrestee’s Rights

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

WASHINGTON – Brigette O. Robertson of Washington, D.C. pled guilty today to violating the constitutional rights of a detained citizen by stomping on her face in June 2023, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

Joining in the announcement was FBI Assistant Director in Charge Steven J. Jensen of the Washington Field Office.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich took Robertson’s guilty plea and scheduled sentencing for Oct. 21, 2025. For the offense to which she pled guilty – a misdemeanor count of violating constitutional rights – the defendant faces a potential penalty of up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

According to court documents, on June 24, 2023, Robertson was employed by Specific Protection Services, LLC., as a Special Police Officer (SPO). She was licensed in the District of Columbia to act and to carry out law enforcement actions as a SPO. That day, while in full uniform and vested with police powers, Robertson was assigned to and providing security services at a McDonald’s restaurant on the 3900 block of Minnesota Avenue, NE.

At about 3:30 p.m., Robertson got into a verbal altercation with a patron at the restaurant. The altercation escalated into a physical confrontation. Metropolitan Police Department officers responded to the scene. After the patron was under the control of an MPD officer, the patron remained prone on the ground. Robertson stepped over the patron and, while doing so, stomped on the patron’s face. The stomp to the face caused the patron to experience pain and bleeding. The stomp was without legal justification and in violation of the individual’s constitutional rights.

Use-of-force investigations generally

The U.S. Attorney’s Office reviews police-involved use of force to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to conclude that any officers violated either federal criminal civil rights laws or District of Columbia law. To prove civil rights violations, prosecutors must typically be able to prove that the involved officers willfully used more force than was reasonably necessary. Proving “willfulness” is a heavy burden. Prosecutors must not only prove that the force used was excessive, but must also prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office remains committed to investigating allegations of excessive force by law enforcement officers and will continue to devote the resources necessary to ensure that all allegations of serious civil rights violations are investigated fully and completely.

The FBI Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs Division investigated the case. Prosecuting the case is Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Truscott for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Fraud, Public Corruption, and Civil Rights Section.

25cr167

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Joplin Man Indicted for Felon in Possession of Firearm

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Joplin, Mo., man has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with his possession of a firearm recovered following a shooting in Joplin, Mo.

Andrew M. Reed, 22, was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon possession of a firearm. Today’s indictment replaces a federal criminal complaint filed on July 2, 2025.

According to an affidavit filed in support of the original complaint, police officers responded to the area of 5^th and Joplin Avenue in Joplin, Mo., on Feb. 15, 2025, in reference to gunshots, and recovered several spent cartridge casings in the area. Officers recovered a firearm with a thirty-round extended magazine loaded with ammunition consistent with the spent shell casings. Surveillance footage from a nearby business showed a male, later identified as Reed, hiding the firearm.

Reed has prior felony convictions and is prohibited from possessing firearms. Under federal law, it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of a felony to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition.

The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony M. Brown It was investigated by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Joplin, Mo., Police Department.

Operation Take Back America

This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Zuni Man Charged in Unprovoked Stabbing That Left Victim Seriously Injured

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

ALBUQUERQUE – A Zuni man has been charged in federal court for allegedly stabbing another man without provocation, causing serious injuries.

According to court documents, on the night of June 16, 2025, Adrian Cheama, 36, an enrolled member of the Zuni Pueblo, allegedly approached the victim while he was walking with a friend along a residential street in Zuni, New Mexico. Without provocation, Cheama stabbed the victim in the abdomen with a weapon described as either a circular metal pole or a knife, then walked away laughing. The victim sustained serious injuries as a result.

Multiple witnesses placed Cheama at the scene and described him carrying a backpack and a baton-like object before and during the attack. The investigation revealed that Cheama had previously made statements suggesting he was looking for the victim.

Cheama is charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault with a dangerous weapon. He will remain in custody pending trial, which has not yet been scheduled. If convicted of the current charges, Cheama faces up to 10 years in prison.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison and Philip Russell, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Albuquerque Field Office, made the announcement today.

The Gallup Resident Agency of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Albuquerque Field Office investigated this case with assistance from the Zuni Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Jordan is prosecuting the case.

A criminal complaint is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: ‘We knocked her out with some gummies:’ trafficker sent to prison for conspiring to smuggle toddler from Mexico

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LAREDO, Texas – A 23-year-old Laredo woman has been ordered to prison for her role in an unaccompanied minor smuggling ring, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

Vanessa Valadez pleaded guilty Sept. 20, 2024, admitting she smuggled a child into the United States for financial gain.

U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison has now ordered her to serve 18 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release.

“Those that choose to engage in the human trafficking business are not good people. They aren’t motivated by altruism or sympathy. They are paid to traffic in human beings, and they treat people they smuggle as nothing more than cargo,” said Ganjei. “The Southern District of Texas will not rest until all such smuggling rings—particularly those that deal in children—are completely eradicated.”

“The sentencing of this individual underscores the serious consequences for those who exploit and endanger vulnerable populations, especially children,” said Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) San Antonio Special Agent in Charge Craig S. Larrabee. “Drugging children to facilitate human smuggling is not only criminal it’s inhumane. HSI is committed to identifying and dismantling the criminal networks behind these horrific acts and ensuring those responsible are brought to justice.”

From August to September 2023, Valadez and other family members operated a child smuggling ring working to bring young illegal minors from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, into the United States. All the children were under the age of five.

On the night of Sept. 19, 2023, members of the smuggling ring retrieved a young girl from a stash house which the organization members operated. The co-conspirators smuggled the girl across the border and delivered her to Valadez in downtown Laredo. Co-conspirators then took the child further into the United States and delivered her to unknown people.

Two days later, the ring attempted to transport another young girl. However, law enforcement intercepted them following a routine border inspection at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo. To carry out their scheme, co-conspirators had sedated the girl with melatonin gummies and used an unlawfully obtained birth certificate to deceive authorities into believing the girl was a family member.

The investigation revealed the smuggling ring had attempted to similarly transport at least four girls into the United States, three of whom remain unidentified and their whereabouts are unknown. Members of the smuggling ring obtained birth certificates of U.S. citizen children to pose as a family unit at ports of entry to the United States. At times, organization members used melatonin gummies to sedate at least one child to ensure a successful smuggling attempt.

One text message uncovered in the investigation showed an image depicting an unconscious child and a caption, “La noquiamos con unas gomitas,” translated in English as “we knocked her out with some gummies.”

Co-conspirators Ana Laura Bryand, 47, Dallas; her niece Kayla Marie Bryand, 20, Jose Eduardo Bryand, 43, and Nancy Guadalupe Bryand, 44, all of Laredo; and Lizeth Esmeralda Bryand Arredondo, 32, Mexico, previously pleaded guilty and have all already been sentenced to federal prison.

ICE-HSI conducted the investigation with Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations and assistance from Border Patrol, Laredo Police Department, Department of Health and Human Services – Office of the Inspector General and FBI. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Makens and former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Terence A. Check Jr. prosecuted the case.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Felon Indicted for Illegal Possession of a Firearm Following Arrest in Northwest D.C.

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative

           WASHINGTON – David Oday Smith, 39, of the District of Columbia, has been charged in an indictment, unsealed today in U.S. District Court, on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative.

           The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

           Smith is charged federally with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.

           According to court documents, on July 14, 2025, members of the MPD’s Fourth District Crime Suppression Team were on patrol on the 5700 block of Georgia Avenue Northwest, when they noticed Smith hiding behind a bus stop with a black satchel.

           As officers approached, Smith immediately fled and eventually discarded his black satchel. Officers searched the satchel and discovered a Glock 27 .40 caliber pistol, containing one .40 caliber round loaded in the chamber and 14 additional rounds in the magazine.

           Smith is prohibited from possession of a firearm and ammunition due to multiple prior felony convictions, including a 2009 second degree murder conviction in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

           This case is being prosecuted under the Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful initiative. Make D.C. Safe Again is a law enforcement initiative in support of President Trump’s Executive Order to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful. Make D.C. Safe Again aims to crack down on gun violence, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenses, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.

           The case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney David B. Liss is prosecuting the case.

           An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

25cr207

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Local man gets over 10 years after picking up and delivering “aparatos”

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LAREDO, Texas – A 25-year-old Laredo resident has been sentenced for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

Fernando Tadeo Cerda, 25, pleaded guilty July 19, 2023.

U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison has now ordered Cerda to serve 120 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by five years of supervised release for the drug trafficking conviction. At the hearing, the court considered Cerda was subject to a mandatory 10 years in prison due to being previously convicted of smuggling aliens.

Cerda had also admitted he violated his term of supervised release and received another nine months to be served consecutively for a total 129-month-term of imprisonment.

The investigation revealed Cerda had conspired with his uncle, Jesus Garza, to coordinate delivery of large amounts of cocaine.

On Nov. 27, 2020, Cerda met with Garza and provided him a duffle bag containing the drugs. As Garza departed the location in Laredo, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop and discovered the bag with five bricks which contained over 5,000 grams of cocaine.

Cerda later admitted Garza had instructed him to pick up and deliver “aparatos” (kilograms of cocaine). He further stated he made a total of four deliveries and was paid $1,000.

He will remain in custody pending transfer to a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

Garza, 63, Laredo, had also pleaded guilty and later sentenced to 48 months in prison.

Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found on the Department of Justice’s OCDETF webpage.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Scott Bowling prosecuted the case.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: 11 Venezuelan Nationals and One Columbian National Indicted for Financial Fraud in the District of Utah

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah – An indictment was unsealed today charging a dozen foreign nationals of bank fraud and engaging in transactions involving criminally derived property. The defendants were indicted by a federal grand jury in April 2025 at the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. Eleven Venezuelan nationals and one Colombian national are accused of committing financial fraud crimes after they allegedly participated in a scheme to defraud banks in Utah and elsewhere.

According to court documents, between January 2023 and June 2023, the defendants were involved in a scheme to defraud financial institutions by opening accounts and presenting fraudulent cashier’s checks to be deposited to those accounts. In some instances, defendants deposited multiple counterfeit checks at different branches on the same day. Defendants then laundered the funds by check, cashier’s check, and cash withdrawal.

Defendants are residents of Salt Lake County:

1.    Gilberto Emiro Andrade-Romero, 36, of Venezuela
2.    Felipe Enrique Linares-Lobo aka Carlos M. Hidalgo Noguera, 32, of Venezuela
3.    Alexis Jose Calixto-Bracho, 25, of Venezuela
4.    Daniel Jose Fuenmayor-leal, aka Enais Inciarte-Urdaneta, 34, of Venezuela
5.    Yeritza Astrid Cuello-Plata, 40, of Venezuela
6.    Federico Javier Gutierrez-Pirela, 36, of Venezuela
7.    Hendry Ricardo Martinez-Concho, 42, of Venezuela
8.    Cristina Paola Nava-Yoris, 24, of Venezuela
9.    Patricia Del Carmen Orozco-Cuello, 37, of Colombia
10.    Ismael Norberto Rodriguez-Moreno, 47, of Venezuela
11.    Jorge Luis Urribarri-Vento, 32, of Venezuela
12.    Rayner Jose Delgado-Quiroz, 24, of Venezuela

Acting United States Attorney Felice John Viti for the District of Utah made the announcement.

The case is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and a HSI Task Force Officer with the Salt Lake City Police Department.

Assistant United States Attorneys Brent L. Andrus and Carl D. Lesueur of the District of Utah are prosecuting the case.

This is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) and Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).

An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

MIL Security OSI –

July 23, 2025