NewzIntel.com

Category: Justice

  • MIL-OSI Security: Twice Convicted Felon Indicted and Ordered Detained for Alleged Possession of a 9 mm Pistol

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

            WASHINGTON – An indictment was unsealed yesterday in federal court in Washington D.C. charging Kelon Von Dukes, 20, with being a convicted felon in illegal possession a firearm and ammunition.

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

            According to court documents, on March 1, 2025, at 5:25 p.m., members of the MPD’s Seventh District Special Missions Unit were on patrol in the Seventh District. They were in full uniform in a fully marked cruiser near 4700 South Capitol Street SE. As officers drove on the 400 Block of Southern Avenue SE, they observed a man standing near a gas station smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette. When the man noticed the officers, he allegedly fled and tossed the cigarette and a black bag.

            Officers pursued and apprehended the man on the 400 block of Southern Avenue. During a pat-down, an officer noted a solid, L-shaped object in the man’s left front pocket. It is alleged that the object was a loaded semi-automatic pistol that had been reported stolen.

            The man later was identified as Kelon Von Dukes, who has two prior felony convictions for carrying a pistol without a license and was on supervised probation at the time of his March 1 arrest.

            On March 11, Dukes was ordered to be detained pending trial by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey.

            This case is being investigated by the MPD and the ATF. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyle McWaters.

            The case is being prosecuted as part of Make D.C. Safe Again, a public safety initiative led by U.S. Attorney Martin to address gun violence in the District of Columbia.

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

    View Dukes Indictment here: 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: No apologies over fabricated terror plot from pollies or lobby groups

    COMMENTARY: By Greg Barns

    When it comes to antisemitism, politicians in Australia are often quick to jump on the claim without waiting for evidence.

    With notable and laudable exceptions like the Greens and independents such as Tasmanian federal MP Andrew Wilkie, it seems any allegation will do when it comes to the opportunity to imply Arab Australians, the Muslim community and Palestinian supporters are trying to destroy the lives of the Jewish community.

    A case in point. The discovery in January this year of a caravan found in Dural, New South Wales, filled with explosives and a note that referenced the Great Synagogue in Sydney led to a frenzy of clearly uninformed and dangerous rhetoric from politicians and the media about an imminent terrorist attack targeting the Jewish community.

    It was nothing of the sort as we now know with the revelation by police that this was a “fabricated terrorist plot”.

    As the ABC reported on March 10: “Police have said an explosives-laden caravan discovered in January at Dural in Sydney’s north-west was a ‘fake terrorism plot’ with ties to organised crime”, and that “the Australian Federal Police said they were confident this was a ‘fabricated terrorist plot’,” adding the belief was held “very early on after the caravan was located”.

    One would have thought the political and media class would know that it is critical in a society supposedly underpinned by the rule of law that police be allowed to get on with the job of investigating allegations without comment.

    Particularly so in the hot-house atmosphere that exists in this nation today.

    Opportunistic Dutton
    But not the ever opportunistic and divisive federal opposition leader Peter Dutton.

    After the Daily Telegraph reported the Dural caravan story on January 29,  Dutton was quick to say that this “was potentially the biggest terrorist attack in our country’s history”. To his credit, Prime Anthony Albanese said in response he does not “talk about operational matters for an ongoing investigation”.

    Dutton’s language was clearly designed to whip up fear and hysteria among the Jewish community and to demonise Palestinian supporters.

    He was not Robinson Crusoe sadly. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns told the media on January 29 that the Dural caravan discovery had the potential to have led to a “mass casualty event”.

    The Zionist Federation of Australia, an organisation that is an unwavering supporter of Israel despite the horror that nation has inflicted on Gaza, was even more overblown in its claims.

    It issued a statement that claimed: “This is undoubtedly the most severe threat to the Jewish community in Australia to date. The plot, if executed, would likely have resulted in the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil.”

    Note the word “undoubtedly”.

    Uncritical Israeli claims
    Then there was another uncritical Israel barracker, Sky News’ Sharri Markson, who claimed; “To think perpetrators would have potentially targeted a museum commemorating the Holocaust — a time when six million Jews were killed — is truly horrifying.”

    And naturally, Jilian Segal, the highly partisan so-called “Antisemitism Envoy” said the discovery of the caravan was a “chilling reminder that the same hatred that led to the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust still exists today”.

    In short, the response to the Dural caravan incident was simply an exercise in jumping on the antisemitism issue without any regard to the consequences for our community, including the fear it spread among Jewish Australians and the further demonising of the Arab Australian community.

    No circumspection. No leadership. No insistence that the matter had not been investigated fully.

    As the only Jewish organisation that represents humanity, the Jewish Council of Australia, said in a statement from its director Sarah Schwartz on March 10 the “statement from the AFP [Australian Federal Police] should prompt reflection from every politician, journalist and community leader who has sought to manipulate and weaponise fears within the Jewish community.

    ‘Irresponsible and dangerous’
    “The attempt to link these events to the support of Palestinians — whether at protests, universities, conferences or writers’ festivals — has been irresponsible and dangerous.” Truth in spades.

    And ask yourself this question. Let’s say the Dural caravan contained notes about mosques and Arab Australian community centres. Would the media, politicians and others have whipped up the same level of hysteria and divisive rhetoric?

    The answer is no.

    One assumes Dutton, Segal, the Zionist Federation and others who frothed at the mouth in January will now offer a collective mea culpa. Sadly, they won’t because there will be no demands to do so.

    The damage to our legal system has been done because political opportunism and milking antisemitism for political ends comes first for those who should know better.

    Greg Barns SC is national criminal justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. This article was first published by Pearls and Irritations social policy journal and is republished with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Leaders of Los Zetas, a Violent Mexican Drug Cartel, Arraigned on Drug Trafficking, Firearm, and Money Laundering Charges

    Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

    Mexican nationals and former leaders of the Los Zetas cartel were arraigned today in Washington, D.C., on charges of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise that involved multiple murder conspiracies, conspiring to manufacture and distribute large quantities of cocaine and marijuana destined for the United States, using firearms — including a machinegun — during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes, and conspiring to launder monetary instruments.

    According to court documents, Miguel Trevino Morales, also known as Z-40, Zeta40, and 40, age 52, and Omar Trevino Morales, also known as 42 and Z-42, age 48, ascended to the highest level of leadership in Los Zetas, a violent cartel comprised of former Mexican military officers that began as an armed militaristic wing of the Gulf Cartel. Miguel Trevino Morales allegedly took over leadership of Los Zetas in October 2012 until his arrest by Mexican authorities in 2013, at which point, his brother, Omar Trevino Morales, allegedly assumed primary leadership of the cartel until his arrest by Mexican authorities in 2015. After their arrests, the defendants allegedly renamed Los Zetas to Cartel del Noreste (CDN) and continued to control the cartel while incarcerated in Mexico. Through the date of the fifth superseding indictment, CDN allegedly continued Los Zetas’ criminal drug trafficking activities and acts of violence including murders, assaults, kidnappings, assassinations, and acts of torture. On Feb. 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of State designated CDN as a foreign terrorist organization.

    “The Criminal Division is dedicated to achieving the Attorney General’s goal of the Total Elimination of Cartels,” said Supervisory Official Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “As alleged, former Zetas cartel leaders Z-40 and Z-42 engaged in conspiracies to kill members of the Mexican government, Mexican citizens, members of rival cartels, members of the Guatemalan government, and Guatemalan drug traffickers. We will aggressively pursue and bring to justice in the United States violent transnational criminals and leaders of cartels and hold them accountable for the death and violence they have committed here and abroad and for the large amounts of dangerous drugs that devastate our communities.”

    “As alleged, the defendants represent some of the world’s most vicious cartel leaders, who oversaw Los Zetas’ reign of terror with grotesque impunity and ruthlessness, and a sheer disregard for anything beyond their wealth, power, and control,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Michael Alfonso of ICE Homeland Security Investigations New York. “I commend ICE Homeland Security Investigations’ El Dorado Task Force for consistently proving itself as a formidable opponent against cartels intent on causing harm. We will use whatever means necessary to protect the safety and security of Americans from threats both here and abroad.”

    The defendants are charged with one count each of continuing a criminal enterprise, conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana for importation into the United States, use of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking crimes, and international money laundering conspiracy. As part of the continuing criminal enterprise count, the defendants are alleged to have engaged in conspiracies to kill members of the Mexican government, Mexican citizens, members of rival cartels, members of the Guatemalan government, and Guatemalan drug traffickers. Because the defendants are charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, they face a maximum penalty of death or life imprisonment.    

    The defendants were subject to longstanding U.S. extradition requests, that were not honored during the prior Administration, but the Mexican government elected to transfer to the current U.S. government in response to the Justice Department’s efforts pursuant to President Trump’s and the Attorney General’s leadership against Mexican drug cartels. On Feb. 27, the defendants were transferred by Mexican authorities to the United States.   

    The Drug Enforcement Administration, ICE HSI, and the FBI are investigating the case.

    Acting Deputy Chief Melanie Alsworth and Trial Attorneys Jayce Born and Kirk Handrich of the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Wang for the Eastern District of New York, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas are prosecuting the case.

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

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Commission’s position on economic involvement in the occupied Palestinian territories – E-000966/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000966/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE)

    The International Court of Justice has confirmed that states and other economic actors must do everything possible to prevent and not participate in the colonisation of the occupied Palestinian territories. The UN Human Rights Council already has a database listing a limited number of companies profiting from the occupation and colonisation of the occupied Palestinian territories.

    Despite being warned about their unlawful actions, some of these companies – such as CAF, Booking, Carrefour, and eDreams – argue that there are no national laws explicitly prohibiting them from conducting business and profiting from activities that support colonisation in violation of international law.

    • 1.Given that the Commission considers occupation and colonisation by force illegal and has imposed sanctions on states and companies benefiting from such activities in various parts of the world, does it, in the case of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, allow and become complicit in the occupation and colonisation of Palestine and the Syrian Golan Heights by failing to enact EU regulations prohibiting economic activities in territories occupied by Israel?
    • 2.Does the Commission believe that it is up to the Member States to legislate or enforce existing laws to prevent violations of international law in this matter?

    Submitted: 6.3.2025

    Last updated: 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Preventing harm to European businesses with regard to the implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – E-000989/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000989/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Sebastian Kruis (PfE)

    The implementation of the DMA presents significant challenges for Europe’s digital ecosystem, with potential repercussions for the well-being of all stakeholders, including users, advertisers and the broader economy. Rather than enhancing the competitiveness of European businesses, the DMA introduces the risk of increasing advertising costs, which could disproportionally impact small and meduim-sized enterprises that rely on digital advertising to reach their customers. The importance of digital advertising in the European economy is well-supported by data. This model generates – via Meta’s ad platform alone – EUR 107 billion annually for European businesses, with a return of EUR 3.79 for every euro invested (according to Meta). Additionally, a study published on 11 May 2022 confirmed that 80 % of campaigns generate profits, highlighting its key role in business competitiveness in Europe (according to Kantar Group).

    • 1.Does the Commission not consider that increasing restrictions and costs for ‘gatekeeper platforms’ will lead to higher advertising costs for European businesses relying on these platforms, ultimately affecting their competitiveness?
    • 2.Subscription for No Ads models are well-established in the market across different sectors and endorsed by the Court of Justice of the EU. Does the Commission agree that these models are fit to comply with the requirements of the DMA, while preventing excessive harm to European businesses, as well as avoiding potential repercussions for trade with the US?

    Submitted: 6.3.2025

    Last updated: 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: WEEK EIGHT WINS: A Testament to American Greatness Under President Trump

    Source: The White House

    The past week was marked by another series of triumphs that underscore the commitment of President Donald J. Trump and his administration to making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous than ever before.

    Here is a non-comprehensive list of wins in week eight:

    • President Trump’s economic agenda came into focus as Americans saw needed economic relief following years of Bidenflation.
      • Consumer inflation “eased more than expected” in February, with core inflation at its lowest level in nearly four years — driven by a decline in airfare prices as Americans prepare for Spring Break.
      • Wholesale inflation came in much lower than expected in February.
      • Mortgage rates dropped to their lowest levels since December, while home purchase applications are at their highest level since January.
      • The price of a dozen eggs is down 36.6% since President Trump’s inauguration.
      • The average price for regular gas has fallen below $3/gallon in 31 states — the third straight week of decline — with the price of oil down nearly 15% since President Trump took office.
    • President Trump and his administration continued their remarkable progress in securing the border following the news that illegal crossings have plummeted to the lowest levels ever recorded.
      • In President Trump’s first 50 days, ICE arrested 32,809 illegal immigrants — nearly 75% of whom were accused or convicted criminals — virtually the same number of arrests over the entirety of Biden’s final year in office.
      • Just 77 “gotaways” were recorded in the past three weeks — a 95% decrease from the average daily number of “gotaways” under Biden in 2023.
      • Migration to the U.S. through Panama’s Darien Gap has dropped by 99% as would-be illegal border crossers turn around.
    • President Trump’s Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum took effect as the Trump Administration levels the playing field for American workers.
      • Steel Manufacturers Association: “As the revised steel tariff goes into effect today, President Trump is boldly declaring that America will no longer be a dumping ground for cheap, subsidized foreign steel … By closing loopholes in the tariff that have been exploited for years, President Trump will again supercharge a steel industry that stands ready to rebuild America.”
      • Five major organizations representing the steel industry issued a statement lauding the tariffs.
    • President Trump’s tariffs continued driving manufacturing back to the U.S.
      • Cra-Z-Art — the biggest toymaker in the country — is expanding its domestic manufacturing by 50%.
        • “We are moving a large percentage of what we have in China to here, duplicating some machinery and investing in high speed automation equipment,” said Chairman Lawrence Rosen. “When Trump announced the higher tariffs on China, it’s been full steam ahead.”
      • GE Aerospace announced a $1 billion investment in its U.S.-based manufacturing operation, which will create 5,000 new jobs.
      • Asahi Group Holdings, one of the largest Japanese beverage makers, announced a $35 million investment to boost production at its Wisconsin plant.
      • Angel Aligner, a global orthodontic manufacturer, announced it will build its first U.S.-based production facility in Wisconsin.
      • Pegatron Corp., a Taiwan-based artificial intelligence server maker, announced it will build its first U.S.-based facility and increase its U.S. investment.
      • Merck opened its $1 billion North Carolina manufacturing facility as it plans to invest $8 billion in the U.S. over the next several years.
      • Saica Group, a Spain-based corrugated packaging maker, announced plans to build a $110 million new manufacturing facility in Anderson, Indiana.
      • Saint Gobain Ceramics announced a new $40 million NorPro manufacturing facility in Wheatfield, New York.
      • LGM Pharma announced a $6 million investment to expand its manufacturing facility in Rosenberg, Texas.
    • President Trump forced Ontario, Canada, Premier Doug Ford to back down from his threat to implement 25% electricity tariffs on American consumers.
    • The Department of Homeland Security unveiled the CBP Home App, which repurposes the Biden-era CBP One App to give illegal immigrants the option of self-deporting.
    • The Trump Administration stripped the first visa of a foreign student linked to Hamas-supporting “disruptions” on a college campus.
    • The Environmental Protection Agency launched the “biggest day of deregulation in American history,” which included ending the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate, stopping the Biden Administration’s assault on power plants, and eliminating costly emissions standards.
    • The EPA canceled more than 400 “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “environmental justice” grants, totaling $1.7 billion.
    • The Department of Education opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI for alleged impermissible use of race-exclusionary preferences, race-based scholarships, and/or race-based segregation.
    • The Trump Administration announced Ukraine accepted an offer to enter into immediate negotiations for a ceasefire and ultimate end to the brutal war.
    • The Trump Administration secured an agreement by Israel and Lebanon to engage in land border negotiations.
    • Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum officially fulfilled President Trump’s promise to rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Texas as the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge — honoring the memory of Jocelyn Nungaray, a young woman whose life was tragically cut short by an illegal immigrant.
    • The Department of the Interior announced the approval of a federal mining plan modification to extend the operational life of Montana’s Spring Creek Mine by 16 years — enabling the production of nearly 40 million tons of coal and supporting hundreds of full-time jobs.
    • The Department of Energy signed the third major liquefied natural gas export permit approval since President Trump reversed the Biden-era ban, allowing the Delfin LNG project — which was delayed by the Biden Administration — to move forward.
    • The Department of Justice’s new interagency task force arrested 214 criminals in its first two weeks, including violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members.
    • The Department of Veterans Affairs opened another new clinic — in addition to the three new clinics opened over the past several weeks — to serve thousands of additional veterans.
    • Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a department-wide review of the U.S. military’s physical and grooming guidelines to ensure the force is meeting the highest possible standard.
    • The Department of Defense terminated woke climate change programs and initiatives that were not in line with the department’s core warfighting mission.
    • Army Chief of Staff General George ordered a review of all general officer memorandums of reprimand that were issued to soldiers who refused to comply with the Biden Administration’s COVID vaccine mandate.
    • The Department of Transportation rescinded memos issued by the Biden administration that injected social justice, radical environmental agendas into infrastructure funding decisions.
    • The Department of the Treasury sanctioned Iran’s oil minister and shadow fleet operators and targeted Houthi terrorists involved in smuggling and procuring weapons.
    • The Department of Agriculture continued its push to root out fraud, waste, and abuse — including terminating a grant that supports “queer and trans farmers and urban consumers.”
    • The Department of Health and Human Services ended a loophole that allowed ingredient manufacturers to utilize chemicals with unknown safety data in food.
    • The Federal Communications Commission launched its sweeping “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” deregulation initiative to alleviate the unnecessary, burdensome regulatory assault on Americans.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Criticism of the bill on developing and promoting research and the excessive level of job insecurity faced by Italian researchers – E-000986/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000986/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Giuseppe Antoci (The Left)

    The Italian Government’s bill on developing and promoting research[1] has been met with widespread criticism, as it could introduce even more job insecurity into the academic world. Although a reform did set out to make research careers more stable (by replacing research cheques with contracts, for example)[2], bureaucratic delays have hampered the practical implementation these measures, thus threatening the effectiveness of the reforms foreseen in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP)[3].

    The bill has been strongly criticised by associations such as ADI[4] and trade unions such as FLC CGIL, which have reported the inconsistencies with Italy’s commitments at EU level to the Commission[5][6]. They argue that the new measures, providing for post-doc contracts and fellowships without adequate safeguards, could make the market even more insecure for researchers, in contradiction with the EU’s goals for universities to strengthen their autonomy and quality.

    In response to the criticism, the Minister for Universities and Research announced that it would be suspending the parliamentary proceedings on the bill to review its content.

    In view of the above:

    • 1.What does the Commission make of the researchers’ and trade unions’ criticism about Bill 1240 and the reforms provided for in the NRRP?
    • 2.What does it make of the worrying phenomenon of job insecurity in Italian universities[7], considering the European standards on stable academic employment and the European Charter for Researchers in particular?
    • 3.Could it support Italy in the structural financing of pre-tenure and tenure-track university positions?

    Submitted: 6.3.2025

    • [1] Bill 1240 https://www.senato.it/leg/19/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/58531.htm
    • [2] Law 79/2022 (‘PNRR-bis’).
    • [3] Reform 1.1 and its practical application vis-à-vis ‘pre-tenure’ university posts, within the meaning of Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241.
    • [4] Italian doctoral students’ association
    • [5] FL CGIL report https.//www.flcgil.it/files/pdf/20250204/lettera-flc-cgil-a-commissione-europea-rischio-annullamento-obblighi-pnrr-riforma-1-1-missione-4-componente-2.pdf.
    • [6] ADI report https.//dottorato.it/content/ricerca-e-ddl-1240-ladi-presenta-un-esposto-alla-commissione-europea-sul-pnrr.
    • [7] In January 2025, more than 30 000 people were in temporary employment, with 7 770 researchers on fixed-term contracts and 24 077 on grants (Ministry for Universities and Research database).
    Last updated: 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Continuing the unwavering EU support for Ukraine, after three years of Russia’s war of aggression – P10_TA(2025)0033 – Wednesday, 12 March 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to its previous resolutions on Ukraine and on Russia, in particular those adopted since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula on 19 February 2014,

    –  having regard to the Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) of 1 August 1975, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of the OSCE of 21 November 1990 and the UN Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 5 December 1994 (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances),

    –  having regard to the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part(1), and to the accompanying Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the European Union and Ukraine, signed in 2014,

    –  having regard to the UN Charter, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols thereto, and to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),

    –  having regard to the European Council’s decision of 14 December 2023 to open accession negotiations with Ukraine, following the Commission’s positive recommendation of 8 November 2023 in this regard,

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/792 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Ukraine Facility(2), and to other forms of EU support for Ukraine,

    –  having regard to the joint statement by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Parliament of 24 February 2025 on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,

    –  having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/7 adopted on 24 February 2025 entitled ‘Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine’,

    –  having regard to the Conclusions of the extraordinary European Council of 6 March 2025,

    –  having regard to Rule 136(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A.  whereas Russia has been waging an illegal, unprovoked and unjustified full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine since 24 February 2022; whereas Russia’s war against Ukraine started in 2014 with the illegal occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula and the subsequent occupation of parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions; whereas this war of aggression constitutes a blatant and flagrant violation of the UN Charter and of the fundamental principles of international law and international humanitarian law, as established by the Geneva Conventions of 1949;

    B.  whereas Russia’s actions in Ukraine over the past three years continue to threaten peace and security in Europe and worldwide; whereas the Russian war of aggression is the largest military conflict on the European continent since the end of the Second World War and reflects the growing conflict between authoritarianism and democracy;

    C.  whereas Ukraine and its citizens have shown unwavering determination in resisting Russia’s war of aggression, successfully defending their country, despite the high cost in civilian and military casualties, along with the attacks on residential areas, destruction of civilian and public infrastructure – particularly that providing water and energy – and of the natural environment and cultural heritage, forced deportations, disappearances and illegal adoptions of deported children, illegal imprisonments, mass killings, executions of civilians, soldiers and prisoners of war, torture and the use of sexual violence and mass rape as weapons of war and altering the ethnic composition of the occupied territories of Ukraine, all of which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity; whereas millions of Ukrainians remain displaced both inside and outside their country; whereas the United Nations has confirmed that more than 12 500 civilians, including hundreds of children, have been murdered since February 2022; whereas the Ukrainian authorities estimate that at least 20 000 Ukrainian children have been deported and forcibly displaced from their homes to Russia and Russian-occupied territories since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022; whereas the Russian Federation attempts to deny Ukraine and its people their ethnic, linguistic and historical identity by erasing signs of Ukrainian identity in occupied territories; whereas the brave people of Ukraine were awarded the 2022 Sakharov Prize as a tribute to their courage and resilience;

    D.  whereas the UN General Assembly, in its resolution of 2 March 2022, immediately qualified the Russian war against Ukraine as an act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and, in its resolution of 14 November 2022, recognised the need to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its war of aggression and legally and financially responsible for its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury and damage caused;

    E.  whereas on 2 March 2022, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into the situation in Ukraine, focusing on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed on Ukrainian territory from 21 November 2013 onwards and on 17 March 2023 issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Maria Lvova-Belova, so-called Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, for the war crime of unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children, arrest warrants for Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu and Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov for crimes against humanity including the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects; whereas the EU supports the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression;

    F.  whereas a number of third countries, notably Iran, North Korea and Belarus, have provided Russia with substantial deliveries of weapons and ammunition, and Belarus has allowed Russia to use its territory to attack Ukraine which amounts to an act of aggression under international law; whereas North Korean troops have been deployed on the battlefield and are fighting alongside the Russian army; whereas Russia and China signed a ‘no-limits partnership’ on 4 February 2022, and subsequently, China has become a key enabler of the Russian war effort through its massive support for Russia’s economy and its defence industrial base, and by supplying dual-use equipment;

    G.  whereas the latest Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment report estimates that, as of December 2024, the total cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine will be at least EUR 506 billion over the next decade, which is 2.8 times the estimated nominal gross domestic product of Ukraine for 2024; whereas a total financing gap of EUR 9,62 billion for recovery and reconstruction needs remains for 2025;

    H.  whereas the EU has recently adopted its 16th sanctions package against Russia to weaken its economic base, deprive it of critical technologies and limit its ability to wage war; whereas the new sanctions target additional individuals and entities, including military firms, sanctions evaders, non-EU country supporters, Kremlin propagandists, shadow fleet networks, and individuals involved in the deportation of Ukrainian children; whereas the EU sanctions now apply to over 2 400 individuals and entities, subjecting them to asset freezes, funding bans and travel restrictions;

    I.  whereas the EU and its Member States have provided the most substantial cumulative support for Ukraine in all areas since the start of the full-scale invasion, and have provided financial support amounting to close to EUR 140 billion, including over EUR 67 billion of support to Ukraine in the form of humanitarian and emergency assistance, budget support and macro-financial assistance and over EUR 48 billion of military aid; whereas approximately EUR 300 billion of Russian sovereign assets were frozen in different jurisdictions; whereas in May 2024, the EU Member States approved the use of financial proceeds generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets held within the EU, estimated at around EUR 210 billion, to support Ukraine, with the aim of providing up to EUR 3 billion per year in support of Ukraine’s reconstruction and resilience efforts;

    J.  whereas many EU Member States continue to purchase fossil fuels from Russia, including liquefied natural gas, imports of which are rising, as well as uranium, contributing to the Russian economy and bolstering its war chest; whereas sales of Russian fossil fuels to the EU since the outbreak of the full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine have exceeded EUR 200 billion;

    K.  whereas the EU has welcomed more than four million refugees from Ukraine and has expressed its support for the people of Ukraine and their leadership by launching negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU;

    L.  whereas the European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine following the positive recommendation of the Commission; whereas the first intergovernmental conference took place on 25 June 2024, launching the negotiation process and adopting the negotiating framework;

    M.  whereas, under the administration of US President Donald Trump, the United States has significantly changed its stance on Russia’s war against Ukraine; whereas President Trump is making demands towards Ukraine but has not expressed any demands towards the Russian side, moreover he has downplayed Moscow’s responsibility for starting the war and possibly envisages granting Russia sanctions relief in the short term; whereas between the time of the meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy on 28 February 2025 and 9 March 2025 alone, Russia carried out over 2 100 aerial assaults, including 1 200 guided bomb strikes and nearly 870 drone attacks;

    N.  whereas recent US-Russia talks in Riyadh excluded Ukraine and the EU, and the United States did not consult its European allies before ending its part in the effort to isolate Russia; whereas the new US administration, alongside Russia and its allies, voted against a UN General Assembly resolution of 24 February 2025 condemning Russia’s aggression; whereas the American U-turn on the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine threatens Ukraine’s capacity to withstand Russia’s aggression, makes clear that Washington’s commitment to hold Russia accountable is no longer dependable and undermines international efforts to address the crisis;

    O.  whereas on 3 March 2025 the United States suspended its military assistance to Ukraine, including that approved by the previous US administration, as well as intelligence sharing with Ukraine; whereas it then cut off Ukraine’s access to commercial satellite imagery collected by the US government system on 7 March 2025;

    P.  whereas, according to widely recognised democratic principles and Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot be held during wartime and under martial law, especially when millions of Ukrainians have been displaced; whereas martial law was declared and continues to be in effect in Ukraine solely because of Russia’s war of aggression; whereas the EU continues to recognise President Zelenskyy as the legitimate leader of Ukraine until democratic elections can be held;

    Q.  whereas President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping freeze on US foreign aid, halting hundreds of critical projects in Ukraine, including demining activities, military veteran rehabilitation, humanitarian aid, independent media and anti-corruption initiatives, investigations into Russian war crimes, but also those bolstering Ukraine’s telecommunications networks against Russian cyberattacks;

    R.  whereas Russia’s war of aggression shows its imperialistic attitude towards its neighbours; whereas as long as Russia remains a state pursuing revisionist policies, it remains a threat to security on the European continent; whereas the Russian war of aggression is part of a broader set of objectives against the West and its interests and values, the international rules-based order, democracy and security, as openly declared by Vladimir Putin in the weeks preceding the full-scale invasion; whereas numerous international actors have recognised Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism and a state that uses means of terrorism;

    S.  whereas Ukraine’s defeat would be widely viewed as a strategic defeat for Europe, the United States and the entire NATO alliance and as a reward for Russia as the aggressor, with far-reaching security consequences, the extent of which cannot be overstated; whereas depending on the outcome of the war in Ukraine, it will likely have a ripple effects in other parts of the world, notably the Indo-Pacific, and could encourage other revisionist powers to pursue their own hegemonic ambitions;

    T.  whereas a Special European Council took place on 6 March 2025 dedicated to the situation in Ukraine and the need to strengthen European defence; whereas the European Council endorsed the defence package put forward by the Commission on strengthening European Defence through the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which could potentially mobilise as much as EUR 800 billion, and reiterated its support for Ukraine, highlighting in particular that there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine and that there can be no negotiations that affect European security without Europe’s involvement, and furthermore that Ukraine’s security and European, transatlantic and global security are intertwined;

    U.  whereas since the outbreak of the war, undersea cables in the Baltic Sea and key infrastructure have been targeted, presumably by Russian and Chinese-linked actors;

    1.  Pays tribute, on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine, to the thousands who have sacrificed their lives for a free and democratic Ukraine; reiterates its unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine and its support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recognised borders; strongly underlines Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter;

    2.  Reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of Russia’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as of the involvement of Belarus, North Korea and Iran; demands that Russia and its proxy forces immediately completely and unconditionally cease all attacks against residential areas and civilian infrastructure, terminate all military action in Ukraine and withdraw all military forces, proxies and military equipment from the entire internationally recognised territory of Ukraine; reiterates its policy of non-recognition of temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine by Russia, including but not limited to Crimea; demands that the Russian Federation permanently cease violating or threatening the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine; condemns the atrocities committed against the Ukrainian population by the Russian invading force and the indiscriminate destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure; demands the end of forced deportations of Ukrainian civilians, and the release and return of all detained Ukrainians, especially children;

    3.  Reiterates its condemnation of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine as an existential threat to European security and stability; emphasises that the crime of aggression against Ukraine is a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter; underlines that the Russian war of aggression has fundamentally changed the geopolitical situation in Europe and beyond, and threatens its security architecture, and that in response this calls for bold, brave and comprehensive political, security and financial decisions by the EU; believes that a Ukraine that is capable of defending itself effectively is an integral part of a stable and predictable European security landscape;

    4.  Believes that the outcome of the war and the stance taken by the international community will play a crucial role in influencing future action by other authoritarian regimes, which are closely observing the course of the war and assessing how much space there is for them to exert aggressive foreign policies, including by military means;

    5.  Expresses deep concern over the apparent shift in the United States’ stance on Russia’s war of aggression, which has included openly blaming Ukraine for the ongoing war, suspending US military aid, and attempting to coerce Ukraine into relinquishing its legitimate right to self-defence and into making territorial concessions; stresses that, in light of this change, the EU and its Member States are now Ukraine’s primary strategic allies and must maintain their role as the largest donor to Ukraine and significantly increase the much-needed assistance they provide to uphold Ukraine’s right to self-defence and step in, as far as possible, to replace suspended USAID funding, while ensuring long-term aid for reconstruction and recovery;

    6.  Reiterates its call on the Member States to substantially increase and accelerate their military support, in particular the provision of weapons and ammunition, as well as training, in response to pressing needs (inter alia long range weapons systems, air defence systems, artillery systems, electronic warfare systems, anti-drone capabilities and engineering equipment); urges Member States and their defence industries to invest in and partner with the Ukrainian defence industry in order to maximise the full potential of its production capabilities to produce critical equipment in the most efficient manner following the Danish and Dutch examples; reiterates its position that all EU Member States and NATO allies should collectively and individually commit to supporting Ukraine militarily, with no less than 0,25 % of their GDP annually; calls on the EU and its Member States to utilise their satellite imagery infrastructure for Ukraine; recalls that the military support to Ukraine must be sufficient to ultimately stop Russia’s war of aggression and allow Ukraine to liberate all its people, re-establish full control over its entire territory within its internationally recognised borders and deter any further aggression by Russia; notes in this context that a number of EU Member States are non-aligned and urges them to increase their support for Ukraine in line with their constitutions;

    7.  Reaffirms its commitment to supporting Ukraine’s desire for a just and lasting peace and to the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan presented by Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy; believes that it is a comprehensive plan to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and includes the building blocks of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine based on the principles of the UN Charter and international law, which requires the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, accountability for war crimes and the crime of aggression, Russian reparations for the massive damage caused in Ukraine, full accountability for those responsible, and exclusion of any future aggressions by Russia; urges the EU and its Member States to work with like-minded partners to ensure that peace negotiations take place in a way that respects the above mentioned principles;

    8.  Underlines that any genuine peace negotiations must be conducted in good faith and include Ukraine; recalls that any settlement that excludes Ukraine or undermines its legitimate aspirations, such as its right to choose its own security arrangements, or which lacks credible security guarantees for Ukraine that contribute to deterring future Russian aggression, will be neither just nor viable;

    9.  Insists that the EU must contribute to robust security guarantees for Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression; underlines that Ukraine must be empowered to resist and prevent further Russian attacks and reject hasty deals that weaken its security in the mid to long term and risk subjecting Ukraine and other European countries to renewed Russian aggression; underlines that Russia’s war economy is not sustainable and coupling orchestrated economic pressure with accelerated military support to Ukraine would enable Ukrainian forces to improve their positions while simultaneously harming Russia’s economy to ensure Ukraine has a stronger negotiating position for Ukraine when it agrees to engage in peace talks;

    10.  Strongly deplores any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrender to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a so-called ‘peace deal’; considers that the current attempts by the US administration to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement with Russia over the heads of Ukraine and other European states, in which the latter are confronted with the outcome without their meaningful participation, as counterproductive and dangerous, as it leads to empowering the belligerent state, thus showing that an aggressive policy is not punished but rewarded; concludes that, taking into account the history of Russia’s violations of previous agreements and fundamental principles of international law, such a peace can only be reached through strength, including effective security guarantees;

    11.  Highlights that the financial support provided by the EU and its Member States to Ukraine exceeds that of any other country, reflecting the Union’s unparalleled commitment to Ukraine and consequently to the security of Europe; underscores that the EU’s role in any negotiations impacting the security of Europe must be commensurate with its political and economic weight; reaffirms that there can be no negotiations touching on European security without the European Union at the table; welcomes efforts by France’s President Macron and the UK’s Prime Minister Starmer to host European emergency summits in Paris and London; welcomes the launch of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to enable a European-led enforcement of an eventual peace agreement;

    12.  Expresses dismay concerning the policy of the US administration of appeasing Russia and targeting its allies; warns that this policy undermines the trust of traditional US allies around the world and can have devastating consequences for the transatlantic bond, peace and stability in Europe and beyond;

    13.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to take the latest developments in the US-Ukraine relations as the final wakeup call for them to step in as Ukraine’s leading partner and actively work towards maintaining the broadest possible international support for Ukraine, including through building a ‘coalition of the able and willing’ with like-minded partners globally to support Ukraine and increase pressure on Russia;

    14.  Welcomes the joint statement by Ukraine and the United States following their meeting in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 11 March 2025, including the resumption of US military assistance and intelligence sharing as well as a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire agreement; recalls that a ceasefire can be an effective tool for suspension of hostilities, only if the aggressor fully adheres to it; expects therefore Russia to agree to it and follow it by ceasing all attacks on Ukraine, its military positions, civilian population, infrastructure and territory;

    15.  Expresses concern about the increased tensions in the Baltic Sea with actions of hybrid warfare against critical infrastructure and considers closer cooperation between the Nordic states, Baltic states, Poland and Germany crucial;

    16.  Welcomes the conclusions of the Special European Council of 6 March 2025 and its support for a rapid strengthening of European defence through the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan and reiterating its support for Ukraine following the ‘peace through strength’ approach, highlighting in particular that Ukraine’s security and European, transatlantic and global security are intertwined;

    17.  Reiterates that Russia’s deliberate attacks on the civilian population of Ukraine, destruction of civilian infrastructure, use of sexual violence and rape as a weapon of war, deportation of thousands of Ukrainian citizens to the territory of the Russian Federation, forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children, and other serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law all constitute war crimes for which all perpetrators must be held accountable;

    18.  Emphasises that all those responsible for war crimes perpetrated in Ukraine must be held accountable and stresses that no peace will be sustainable without justice; reiterates its call on the Commission, the VP/HR and the Member States to work together with Ukraine and the international community on setting up a special tribunal to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression committed against Ukraine by Russia and its allies and underlines the need for the jurisdiction of this tribunal to cover the entire leadership of Russia and Belarus responsible for the aggression against Ukraine; welcomes the establishment of the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine in The Hague;

    19.  Emphasises its full support for the ongoing investigation by the Prosecutor of the ICC into the situation in Ukraine based on alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; welcomes Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC, which allowed it to become a state party to it as of January 2025; in this context, expresses its utmost concern about the US sanctions against the ICC, its prosecutors, judges and staff, which constitute a serious attack on the international justice system; calls on the Commission to urgently activate the Blocking Statute and on the Member States to urgently increase their diplomatic efforts in order to protect and safeguard the ICC as an indispensable cornerstone of the international justice system;

    20.  Welcomes the European Council’s decision to open accession negotiations with Ukraine once the Commission’s recommendations are met; reaffirms that Ukraine’s future lies in the EU; welcomes progress on accession-related reforms despite wartime conditions; calls for the acceleration of accession talks, recognising Ukraine’s EU integration as a strategic priority; underscores the importance of continued EU financial assistance, linked to concrete reform, as a key instrument to sustain and accelerate Ukraine’s transformation in line with European standards; underlines that the Copenhagen criteria and the required reforms, in particular concerning the rule of law, democracy, fundamental freedoms and human rights, are fundamental to the merit-based process of accession; believes that Ukraine’s membership of the EU represents a geostrategic investment in a united and strong Europe and that it equates to showing leadership, resolve and vision;

    21.  Recalls NATO’s commitments to admit Ukraine to the Alliance; notes in this regard NATO’s consistent open door policy, in accordance with which NATO remains open to all European democracies that share the values of the Alliance, and in accordance with which decisions on membership have to be taken only by NATO allies, with no third party having a say in this process;

    22.  Calls on the Ukrainian authorities to strengthen internal political unity in Ukraine, uphold parliamentary pluralism and engage in constructive cooperation with the political parties in the Verkhovna Rada; calls on Ukrainian political stakeholders to continue strengthening political unity and parliamentary pluralism and to engage in constructive cooperation within the Verkhovna Rada; calls for due regard to be given to the powers and rights of local self-governing bodies; calls for media pluralism to be guaranteed in line with the democratic principles and values that Ukrainians are so resolutely and bravely defending; suggests in light of the EU accession process to end all limitations of foreign travel of members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine;

    23.  Commends Ukrainian, European and international civil society organisations for supporting families of abducted Ukrainian children, prisoners of war, and illegally detained civilians; calls for the EU, its Member States and the international community to assist their efforts and intensify pressure on Russia to return all abducted and detained Ukrainians;

    24.  Points to the estimate of the latest Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment that at least EUR 506 billion will be required over the next decade for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction; welcomes the EU’s Ukraine Facility, which has a budget of almost EUR 50 billion, and the EU’s Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism, which, in cooperation with the G7, offers loans to Ukraine of up to EUR 45 billion; nevertheless, urges the EU to prepare for Ukraine’s reconstruction by dedicating and securing new resources; calls for the EU, the Member States and like-minded partners to provide comprehensive and coordinated political, economic, technical and humanitarian assistance to support the sustainable and inclusive post-war reconstruction and recovery of Ukraine; reaffirms the EU’s commitment to sustainable and long-term financial and economic support to Ukraine, including macro-financial assistance, support for reconstruction and economic and social recovery and measures to ensure the resilience of Ukraine’s economy and critical infrastructure; reiterates its firm conviction that Russia must pay for the massive damage caused in Ukraine and therefore calls for the Russian sovereign assets immobilised under EU sanctions to be confiscated for the purpose of supporting Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction;

    25.  Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to increase the effectiveness and impact of sanctions on Russia in order to definitively undermine Russia’s ability to continue waging its brutal war of aggression against Ukraine and threatening the security of other European countries; calls for a ban or targeted tariffs on Russian imports to the EU with the aim of fully closing the flow of grain, potash and fertilisers as well as raw materials including steel, uranium, titanium, nickel, wood and wood products, and all types of oil and gas; calls on the Council to maintain, mirror where possible and extend its sanctions policy against Russia, and all the enabling states, such as Belarus, Iran, North Korea, and to sanction Chinese entities suppling dual-use goods and military items, while monitoring, reviewing and enhancing the policy’s effectiveness and impact; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the swift implementation and strict enforcement of all packages of sanctions and to strengthen cooperation among Member States; asks the Commission for an impact assessment of the effectiveness of sanctions in hindering the Russian war effort and on the effectiveness of measures to prevent the circumvention of sanctions; calls on the Council to systematically tackle the issue of sanctions circumvention by EU-based companies, third parties and non-EU countries, and to adopt and strictly implement restrictive measures against all entities facilitating the circumvention of sanctions and providing the Russian military complex with military and dual-use technologies and equipment;

    26.  Calls for further sanctions against sectors of special importance for the Russian economy, in particular banking, the metallurgy, nuclear, chemical and agriculture sectors, raw materials such as aluminium, steel, uranium, titanium and nickel, as well as for anti-circumvention measures against all countries and entities that provide Russia with military and dual-use goods and technologies; calls for further actions against the Russian ‘shadow fleet’, in the light of sanctions circumvention, sabotage of critical infrastructure and environmental risks; calls on the Commission to jointly engage with flag and port states outside of the EU and take action against owners, operators and insurance operators in third countries that enable Russia’s shadow fleet; urges the Member States to further coordinate operational cooperation between coast guard agencies in order to increase the overall capacity for maritime surveillance; highlights that Russia is increasing its reliance on gas-derived fertilisers, which provide a growing source of revenue, while simultaneously compromising EU economies and threatening food security; expects the EU to keep its sanctions against Russia in place as long as needed to secure a just and lasting peace and until accountability is achieved;

    27.  Calls for the next EU sanctions package to sanction all known shadow fleet tankers and their owners, while also introducing sanctions on any oil tanker breaching the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and enforcing strict implementation by all Member States of the measures prohibiting vessels, irrespective of flag, from sailing in European waters or into any EU Member State port if they have not followed the international rules regarding ship-to-ship transfers (STS) at sea or have illegally turned off their automatic identification system; urges the Commission and the Member States to ban ship-to-ship transfers of Russian oil in EU waters;

    28.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop broader sanctions on Russian and Belarusian wood, including specifically prohibiting the import or purchase of wood products processed in non-EU countries that incorporate wood, particularly birch plywood, originating in Russia or Belarus, to support the enforcement of current sanctions;

    29.  Strongly condemns the Hungarian Government for threatening to block the renewal of the EU’s sanctions framework as well as to limit an appropriate EU response commensurate with the gravity of the situation; calls on the Member States to use all available tools to prevent the Hungarian Government from further blocking;

    30.  Calls for further limitations on Russian and Belarusian citizens entering the EU, especially through more stringent security screenings, including the submission of military service records during the Schengen visa application process, notwithstanding the need to issue humanitarian visas;

    31.  Strongly condemns the execution of Ukrainian prisoners of war by Russian forces; calls for the EU, its Member States and international partners to increase pressure on Russia to comply with its international obligations, particularly the Geneva Convention, and allow international organisations access to prisoners;

    32.  Condemns the devastating impact of Russia’s war on children; calls for increased EU support for children’s education, healthcare, mental health services, and for child protection, including trauma recovery and safe learning environments; urges the EU and Ukraine to prioritise children’s needs in aid and reconstruction efforts, in clearing landmines, and in integrating child welfare into the EU accession process;

    33.  Reiterates its concern about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is illegally controlled by Russia; supports efforts to maintain a continued International Atomic Energy Agency presence at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant; reiterates its deep concern about the broader long-term environmental impact of the war;

    34.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to strengthen EU strategic communication, particularly to publicly set the record straight about the EU’s leading support to Ukraine – especially in light of claims that seek to diminish its contribution – to counter hybrid threats and grey zone activities, and to prevent Russian interference in political, electoral, and other democratic processes in Ukraine and Europe; urges proactive communication on EU enlargement benefits to enhance public understanding and support for Ukraine’s accession in both Ukraine and the Member States; underlines that Ukraine’s EU integration is an opportunity for the development of both bordering regions and the Member States; calls strongly for the EU and the Member States to combat Russian disinformation about the war, by strengthening digital literacy, promoting fact-based narratives and holding social media platforms accountable for spreading harmful content by strictly enforcing the Digital Services Act(3);

    35.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the President, Government and Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    (1) OJ L 161, 29.5.2014, p. 3, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2014/295/oj.
    (2) OJ L, 2024/792, 29.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/792/oj.
    (3) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj).

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – European Semester for economic policy coordination 2025 – P10_TA(2025)0031 – Wednesday, 12 March 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 121, 126 and 136 thereof,

    –  having regard to Protocol No 1 to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the TFEU on the role of national parliaments in the European Union,

    –  having regard to Protocol No 2 to the TEU and the TFEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,

    –  having regard to Protocol No 12 to the TEU and the TFEU on the excessive debt procedure,

    –  having regard to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union,

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1263 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on the effective coordination of economic policies and on multilateral budgetary surveillance and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97(1),

    –  having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1264 of 29 April 2024 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure(2),

    –  having regard to Council Directive (EU) 2024/1265 of 29 April 2024 amending Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States(3),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area(4),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area(5),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances(6),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability(7),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area(8),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget(9) (the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),

    –  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility(10) (the RRF Regulation),

    –  having regard to the Commission’s Spring 2024 Economic Forecast of 15 May 2024,

    –  having regard to the Commission’s Autumn 2024 Economic Forecast of 15 November 2024,

    –  having regard to the Commission’s Debt Sustainability Monitor 2023 of 22 March 2024,

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 December 2024 entitled ‘Alert Mechanism Report 2025’ (COM(2024)0702) and to the Commission recommendation of 17 December 2024 for a Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (COM(2024)0704),

    –  having regard to the Commission proposal of 17 December 2024 for a joint employment report from the Commission and the Council (COM(2024)0701),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 8 March 2023 entitled ‘Fiscal policy guidance for 2024’ (COM(2023)0141),

    –  having regard to the Commission report of 19 June 2024 prepared in accordance with Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (COM(2024)0598),

    –  having regard to the Council Recommendation of 12 April 2024 on the economic policy of the euro area(11),

    –  having regard to the European Fiscal Board assessment of 3 July 2024 on the fiscal stance appropriate for the euro area in 2025,

    –  having regard to the Eurogroup statement of 15 July 2024 on the fiscal stance for the euro area in 2025,

    –  having regard to the European Fiscal Board’s 2024 annual report, published on 2 October 2024,

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 19 June 2024 entitled ‘2024 European Semester – Spring Package’ (COM(2024)0600),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 December 2024 entitled ‘2025 European Semester – Autumn package’ (COM(2024)0700),

    –  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 entitled ‘The European Green Deal’ (COM(2019)0640), to the Paris Agreement adopted on 12 December 2025 in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and to the UN Sustainable Development Goals,

    –  having regard to the Eighth Environment Action Programme to 2030,

    –  having regard to the Interinstitutional Proclamation of 17 November 2017 on the European Pillar of Social Rights(12) and to the Commission communication of 4 March 2021 entitled ‘The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan’ (COM(2021)0102),

    –  having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on access to decent and affordable housing for all(13),

    –  having regard to the document by Ursula von der Leyen, candidate for President of the European Commission, of 18 July 2024 entitled ‘Europe’s choice – Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029’, and to the statement made by Valdis Dombrovskis, Commissioner for Economy and Productivity, Implementation and Simplification, at his confirmation hearing on 7 November 2024,

    –  having regard to International Monetary Fund working paper 24/181 of August 2024 entitled ‘Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response’,

    –  having regard to the International Monetary Fund’s Fiscal Monitor entitled ‘Putting a Lid on Public Debt’ of October 2024,

    –  having regard to Special Report 13/2024 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility – Progressing with delays and risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of RRF objectives’,

    –  having regard to the in-depth analysis entitled ‘The new economic governance framework: implications for monetary policy’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies on 20 November 2024(14),

    –  having regard to the in-depth analysis entitled ‘Economic Dialogue with the European Commission on EU Fiscal Surveillance’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies on 1 December 2024(15),

    –  having regard to Mario Draghi’s report of 9 September 2024 entitled ‘The future of European Competitiveness’ (the Draghi report),

    –  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A10-0022/2025),

    A.  whereas the European Semester plays an essential role in coordinating economic and budgetary policies in the Member States, and thus preserves the macroeconomic stability of the economic and monetary union;

    B.  whereas the European Semester aims to promote sustainable, inclusive and competitive growth, employment, macroeconomic stability and sound public finances throughout the entire EU, with a view to ensuring the sustained upward convergence of the economic, social and environmental performance of the Member States;

    C.  whereas the 2024 European Semester marked the first implementation cycle of the new economic governance framework, which came into force on 30 April 2024, guiding the EU and its Member States through a transitional phase;

    D.  whereas the 2024 Council Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area calls on the Member States to take action, both individually and collectively, to strengthen competitiveness, boost economic and social resilience, preserve macro-financial stability and sustain a high level of public investment to support the green and digital transitions; whereas fiscal stability is a basis for both sustainable high social standards in the EU and the competitiveness of the EU;

    E.  whereas the main objectives of the new economic governance framework are to strengthen debt sustainability and sustainable and inclusive growth in all Member States, as well as enabling all Member States to undertake the necessary reforms and investments in the EU’s common priorities, which include (i) a fair green and digital transition, (ii) social and economic resilience including the European pillar of social rights, (iii) energy security, and (iv) the build-up of defence capabilities; whereas disparities in fiscal capacity among Member States hinder equitable investment in strategic priorities and weaken cohesion within the single market;

    F.  whereas reference values of up to 3 % of government deficit to GDP and 60 % of public debt to GDP are defined by the TFEU; whereas the EU’s headline deficit and government debt-to-GDP ratio remain above the reference values; whereas both the headline deficit and government debt-to-GDP ratio vary across the EU, with significantly divergent situations in different Member States;

    G.  whereas excessive deficit procedures were opened, or kept open, for eight Member States in 2024; whereas some Member States were not subject to an excessive deficit procedure, despite having a deficit above 3 % of GDP in 2023, as decided by the Council and the Commission after a balanced assessment of all the relevant factors;

    H.  whereas no procedure concerning macroeconomic imbalances has been opened by the Council since the establishment of this procedure in 2011; whereas, in accordance with its Alert Mechanism Report, the Commission will conduct an in-depth review of 10 countries identified as experiencing macroeconomic imbalances or excessive imbalances in 2025;

    I.  whereas the success of a framework relies heavily on its proper, transparent and effective implementation from the outset, while taking into account the Member States’ starting points and the individual challenges they face;

    J.  whereas the timely submission of the national medium-term fiscal-structural and draft budgetary plans is a precondition for the effective implementation and credibility of the new rules; whereas the first national fiscal and budgetary plans have already been assessed by the Council; whereas the equal treatment of the Member States and compliance with the requirements outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1263 as regards the fiscal plans are necessary for the effective implementation of the framework;

    K.  whereas the economic outlook for the EU remains highly uncertain and there is a growing risk of future events or situations that will negatively affect the economy; whereas Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the conflicts in the Middle East are aggravating geopolitical risks and highlighting Europe’s energy vulnerability; whereas a rise in protectionist measures by trading partners may affect world trade, with negative repercussions for the EU economy; whereas current geopolitical tensions have demonstrated the need for the EU to further strengthen its open strategic autonomy and remain competitive in the global market, while ensuring that no one is left behind;

    L.  whereas the implementation of the revised economic governance framework is expected to lead to a restrictive fiscal stance for the euro area, as a whole, of 0,5 % of GDP in 2024 and 0,25 % of GDP in 2025; whereas political discussion is needed to ensure appropriate public investment levels following the expiry of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) in 2026;

    M.  whereas the Draghi report points out that the gap between the EU and the United States in the level of GDP at 2015 prices has gradually widened, from slightly more than 15 % in 2002 to 30 % in 2023, and estimates the necessary additional annual investment by the EU at EUR 800 billion, including EUR 450 billion for the energy transition;

    N.  whereas the new Commission has set the goal of being an ‘investment Commission’; whereas discussions on addressing the significant investment gap and reducing borrowing costs are needed in the EU; whereas the framework, where appropriate, should be strengthened by EU-level investment instruments and tools designed to minimise the cost for EU taxpayers and maximise efficiency in the provision of European public goods;

    O.  whereas the Member States need to have the necessary control and audit mechanisms to ensure respect for the rule of law and to protect the EU’s financial interests, in particular to prevent fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest and to ensure transparency;

    P.  whereas it is important to increase the share of ‘fully implemented’ country-specific recommendations (CSRs) and to link them more closely to the respective country reports in order to contribute to more effective economic governance;

    1.  Notes that in the last few years, the EU has demonstrated a high degree of resilience and unity in the face of major shocks, thanks, among other things, to a coordinated policy response involving all the EU institutions, including a flexible approach to the use of new and existing instruments; further recalls that promoting long-term sustainable growth means promoting a balance between responsible fiscal policies, structural reforms and investments that together increase efficiency, productivity, employment and prosperity, and also entails boosting competitiveness, fostering the single market, developing economic growth policies and revising the regulatory framework to attract investments; stresses the fundamental need for sustainable, inclusive and competitive economic growth;

    2.  Notes that economic policy coordination is fundamentally necessary for a successful economic and monetary union; recalls that the European Semester is the well-established framework for coordinating fiscal, economic, employment and social policies across the EU, in line with the Treaties, while respecting the defined national competences;

    3.  Notes the Commission’s commitment to ensure that the European Semester drives policy coordination for competitiveness, sustainability and social fairness, as well as the integration of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the European pillar of social rights; notes that the European Green Deal remains a core deliverable for the Commission;

    4.  Highlights the fact that an integrated, coordinated, targeted and horizontal industrial policy is vital to increase investments in the EU’s innovation capacity, while bolstering competitiveness and the integrity of the single market;

    5.  Highlights that public and private investments are crucial for the EU’s ability to cope with existing challenges, including developing the EU’s innovation capacity and implementing the just green and digital transitions, and that they will increase the EU’s resilience, long-term competitiveness and open strategic autonomy; calls attention to the need for strategic investments in energy interconnections, low-carbon energies (such as renewables) and energy efficiency to, among other things, (i) make the EU independent from imported fossil fuels and prevent the possible inflationary effects of dependence on these, (ii) modernise production systems and (iii) promote social cohesion; recalls that the materialisation of climate-change-related physical risks can greatly affect public finances, as demonstrated by the floods in Valencia in October 2024 and the cyclone in Mayotte in December 2024; calls on the Member States to make the necessary investments to improve climate change mitigation and adaptation and enhance the resilience of the EU economy;

    6.  Calls on the Commission to come up with initiatives, on the basis of the Budapest Declaration; to make the EU more competitive, productive, innovative and sustainable, by building on economic, social and territorial cohesion and ensuring convergence and a level playing field both within the EU and globally; notes the development of a new competitiveness coordination tool; expects the Commission to clarify how this tool will interact with the European Semester; stresses the importance of supporting micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as key drivers of economic growth and employment within the EU;

    7.  Stresses the need to foster a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem that supports innovators, recognising their critical role in driving global competitiveness, economic resilience, job creation and open strategic autonomy;

    8.  Welcomes the Commission’s recommendations regarding the economic policy of the euro area, urging the Member States to enhance competitiveness and foster productivity through improved access to funding for businesses, reduced administrative burdens, and public and private investment in areas of EU common priorities, which include (i) a fair green and digital transition, (ii) social and economic resilience including the European pillar of social rights, (iii) energy security, and (iv) the build-up of defence capabilities;

    9.  Welcomes the Commission’s recommendation that, when defining fiscal strategies, euro area Member States should aim to improve the quality and efficiency of public expenditure and public revenue, which are essential for ensuring the sustainability of public finances, while minimising detrimental and distortive impacts on economic growth; stresses that this could be achieved by, among other things, increasing European coordination and reducing tax avoidance and tax evasion; welcomes the Draghi report’s conclusion that a coordinated reduction of labour income taxation for low- to middle-income workers is needed to promote EU competitiveness; recalls the Member States’ competence in tax policy; invites the Member States to redirect the tax burden from income to less distortive tax bases;

    10.  Highlights the need to create fiscal buffers to address fiscal sustainability challenges, ensuring sufficient resources for investment and for dealing with potential future shocks and crises; stresses the importance of promoting competitive, sustainable and inclusive growth in supporting long-term fiscal stability and resilience;

    Economic prospects for the EU

    11.  Expresses concern that, according to the Commission’s autumn 2024 economic forecast, EU GDP is expected to grow by 0,9 % (0,8 % in the euro area) in 2024, by 1,5 % (1,3 % in the euro area) in 2025 and by 1,8% (1,6% in the euro area) in 2026; recalls that these figures reflect a gradual recovery, but also limited economic expansion compared to previous economic cycles; notes that the economic outlook for the EU remains highly uncertain, with risks more likely to negatively affect economic growth;

    12.  Notes that the public debt ratio is projected to increase to 83,0 % in the EU and 89,6 % in the euro area in 2025 and to 83,4 % in the EU and 90 % in the euro area in 2026, when the output gap will be virtually closed both in the EU and in the euro area, and that this is higher than the levels in 2024 (82,4 % for the EU and 89,1 % for the euro area);

    13.  Recalls that developments in public debt ratios vary from country to country; points out that policy uncertainty and geopolitical risks can contribute significantly to increasing the cost of borrowing on the financial markets for the Member States; notes that unsustainable debt levels could undermine economic stability and decrease the Member States’ economic resilience and capacity to respond to crises; highlights that in 2024 and 2025, 11 euro area Member States are expected to have debt ratios above the Treaty reference value of 60 %, with 5 remaining above 100 %;

    14.  Notes that according to the Commission’s 2024 autumn economic forecast, the general government deficit in the EU and the euro area is expected to decline to 3,1 % and 3 % of GDP, respectively, in 2024, and to decrease further to 3 % and 2,9 % of GDP in 2025 and 2,9 % and 2,8 % of GDP in 2026; stresses that 10 EU Member States are expected to post a deficit above the Treaty reference value of 3 % of GDP in 2024; points out that this number will remain stable in 2025, and that in 2026, most Member States are forecast to have weaker budgetary positions than before the pandemic (2019), with 9 of them still posting deficits of above 3 %;

    15.  Notes that eight Member States have excessive deficits; recalls that the Council has taken remedial action and calls on the Member States concerned to take steps to reduce excessive deficits while minimising the socio-economic impact; recalls the importance of consistency in applying the excessive deficit procedure to the Member States;

    16.  Notes that according to the Commission’s autumn 2024 economic forecast, inflation is projected to fall from 2,6 % in 2024 to 2,4 % in 2025 and 2 % in 2026 in the EU, and from 2,4 % in 2024 to 2,1 % in 2025 and 1,9 % in 2026 in the euro area; recalls that although this reduction is a positive development, core inflation remains relatively high, which points to persistent inflationary pressures; notes that fiscal policy, while safeguarding fiscal sustainability, can support monetary policy in reducing inflation, and should provide sufficient space for additional investments and support long-term growth;

    17.  Notes that the Commission has not been able to present the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey, the Alert Mechanism Report, the draft euro area recommendation and the draft joint employment report at the same time;

    18.  Observes that according to the Commission’s 2025 Alert Mechanism Report, in-depth reviews will be prepared in 2025 for the nine countries that were identified as experiencing imbalances or excessive imbalances in 2024, while another in-depth review should be undertaken for another Member State, as it presents particular risks of newly emerging imbalances;

    19.  Underlines that housing is directly interconnected with the macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, with damaging implications for economic resilience, dynamism and social progress and for regional and intra-EU mobility; is concerned that in some Member States, house prices are likely to increase and may become hard to curb in the absence of a holistic strategy;

    Revised EU economic governance framework and its effective implementation

    20.  Recalls that the reform aims to make the framework simpler, more transparent and more effective, with greater national ownership and better enforcement, while differentiating between Member States on the basis of their individual starting points, representing a step forward in ending the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach in view of the country-specific fiscal sustainability considerations embodied in the net expenditure path; recalls, furthermore, that the reform aims to strengthen fiscal sustainability through gradual and tailor-made adjustments complemented by reforms and investments and to promote countercyclical fiscal policies;

    21.  Acknowledges that the new fiscal rules provide greater flexibility and incentives linked to the investments and national reforms required to address the economic, social and geopolitical challenges facing the EU; acknowledges that financial resources and contributions from national budgets differ from one Member State to another; welcomes the fact that the net expenditure indicator excludes all national co-financing in EU-funded programmes, providing increased fiscal space for Member States to invest in the EU’s common priorities, as laid down in Regulation (EU) 2024/1263, thus helping to strengthen synergies between the EU and national budgets, thereby reducing fragmentation and increasing the overall efficiency of public spending in some areas, such as defence;

    22.  Highlights that the debt sustainability analysis (DSA) plays a key role in the reformed EU fiscal rules; is of the opinion that the discretionary role of the Commission in the DSA requires the relevant assessments to be fully transparent, predictable, replicable and stable; calls on the Commission to address possible methodological improvements, such as assessing spillover effects between Member States, and to duly inform Parliament in this regard;

    23.  Notes the Commission’s inconsistent application of the fiscal rules framework in the past, and the Member States’ uneven compliance with the rules; stresses that it is essential for the new framework to ensure the equal treatment of the Member States; affirms that a successful framework relies heavily on proper, transparent and effective implementation from the outset, while taking into account the Member States’ starting points and the individual challenges they face; takes note of the changes introduced in the new framework to improve the credibility of the financial sanctions regime;

    24.  Encourages the Member States to align the technical definition of their national operational indicator to the European primary net expenditure indicator;

    25.  Emphasises the role of Parliament and of independent fiscal authorities in the EU’s economic governance framework; underlines the discretionary power of the Commission in developing the medium-term fiscal-structural plans; emphasises the need for increased scrutiny of the Commission by Parliament and by the European Fiscal Board, as envisioned in Regulation (EU) 2024/1263, and for an increase in the flow of information towards Parliament to enable its effective oversight;

    National medium-term fiscal-structural and budgetary plans

    26.  Notes that not all Member States were able to submit their national medium-term fiscal-structural and draft budgetary plans on time; notes that, as a result of general elections and the formation of new governments, five Member States have not yet submitted their national medium-term fiscal-structural plans and two Member States have not yet submitted their draft budgetary plans, while one Member State has not submitted its draft budgetary plan for other unspecified reasons; calls on these Member States to submit the relevant plans as soon as possible; underlines that the timely submission of these plans is a precondition for the effective implementation and credibility of the new rules; reaffirms the importance of the timely submission of draft budgetary plans to translate commitments outlined in fiscal plans into concrete policies following approval of the national medium-term fiscal-structural plans;

    27.  Recalls that the reforms and investments outlined in the national medium-term fiscal-structural plans should align with the EU’s common priorities as laid down in Regulation (EU) 2024/1263; emphasises that, under the new framework, the Commission should pay particular attention to these priorities when assessing the national medium-term fiscal-structural plans;

    28.  Acknowledges that 21 of the 22 national medium-term fiscal-structural plans that have been reviewed so far received a positive evaluation; notes that the new framework allows Member States to use assumptions that differ from the Commission’s DSA if these differences are explained and duly justified in a transparent manner and are based on sound economic arguments in the technical dialogue with the Member States; observes, however, that in the plans submitted by five Member States, the Commission found insufficiently justified inconsistencies and deviations from the DSA framework in macroeconomic assumptions related to potential GDP and/or the GDP deflator; stresses that such deviations and risks of backloading could potentially threaten future fiscal sustainability; notes that in the plans submitted by three Member States, the Commission acknowledges a concentration of the fiscal adjustment towards the end of the period; calls on the Commission to ensure that any such concentration of the adjustment meets the requirements set out in the regulation and calls on it to prevent procyclical policies;

    29.  Takes note of the fact that only seven Member States have sought an opinion from their relevant independent fiscal institution, which provides an important additional scrutiny dimension; notes with caution that some independent fiscal institutions gave a negative opinion on their Member State’s national fiscal plan; stresses that nine Member States did not meet their obligation to conduct political consultations with civil society, social partners, regional authorities and other relevant stakeholders prior to submitting their national plans; further regrets the fact that several Member States have not involved their national parliaments in the approval process for the plans and have not reported whether the required consultations with national parliaments took place as laid down in the new framework;

    30.  Observes that five Member States have requested an extension of the adjustment period; emphasises that any such extension should be based on a set of investment and reform commitments that, taken all together, improve the potential growth and resilience of the economy, support fiscal sustainability, address the EU’s common priorities and the relevant CSRs and have been assessed as meeting the conditions outlined in the regulation for such an extension; notes that the reforms and investments used to justify this extension rely considerably on reforms already approved under the RRF; highlights the importance of and need for reforms and investments that contribute positively to the potential GDP growth of the Member States; calls on the Commission to effectively evaluate ex post the impact of agreed investments and reforms in terms of supporting fiscal sustainability, enhancing the growth potential of the economy, addressing the EU’s common priorities and the CSRs and ensuring the required level of nationally financed public investment;

    31.  Notes the Commission’s assessment that only 8 of the 17 draft budgetary plans presented are in line with fiscal recommendations stemming from the national medium-term fiscal-structural plan; regrets the fact that 7 plans were assessed as not being fully in line with the recommendations, 1 as non-compliant and 1 as at risk of not being in line with the recommendations; is concerned that six Member States have presented draft budgetary plans with annual or cumulative expenditure growth above their prescribed ceilings;

    Fiscal stance and the role of fiscal policy in the provision of European public goods

    32.  Notes the Commission’s projection that the implementation of the revised governance framework is expected to lead to a reduction of the primary structural balance for the euro area as a whole of 0,5 % of GDP in 2024 and 0,25 % of GDP in 2025; notes the Commission’s assessment that this is in line with the process of enhancing fiscal sustainability and support the ongoing disinflationary process as economic uncertainty remains high; notes that GDP growth will continue to support fiscal consolidation throughout the EU; calls for fiscal policies that restore stability while promoting innovation, industrial competitiveness and long-term economic growth; stresses the need to create additional fiscal space to tackle future challenges and potential crises while preserving a sufficient level of investment to support and foster sustainable and inclusive growth, industrialisation and prosperity for all;

    33.  Considers that the effective implementation of the fiscal rules, although necessary, is not in itself sufficient to achieve the optimal fiscal stance at all times and ensure a high standard of living for all Europeans; notes that the fiscal stance is still projected to differ greatly from one Member State to another in 2025; calls on the Commission to explore ideas for a mechanism that helps ensure that the cyclical position of the EU as a whole is appropriate for the macroeconomic outlook at all times;

    34.  Recalls that, according to the Commission, the fiscal drag in 2025 will be partly offset by a slight expansion in investment, financed both by national budgets and by RRF grants and other EU funds; emphasises the RRF’s role in addressing EU investment needs, noting that it will expire by the end of 2026, which might lead to a decrease in public investment in common European priorities;

    35.  Calls on the Commission to initiate discussions on addressing the significant investment gap in the EU and to reduce borrowing costs, strengthen financial stability and enable strategic investments in line with the EU’s objectives and for the provision of European public goods, such as defence capabilities to match needs in a context of growing threats and security challenges; calls for full use to be made of the efficiency gains that may stem from the provision of European public goods at EU scale through the effective coordination of investment priorities among Member States; believes that this framework, where appropriate, should be strengthened by EU-level investment instruments and tools designed to minimise the cost for EU taxpayers and maximise efficiency in the provision of European public goods;

    36.  Recalls that any EU funding must be accompanied by robust controls ensuring transparency, accountability and the efficient use of funds, so as to avoid unjustified increases in public spending;

    37.  Encourages the Member States to promote investment spending that produces a positive rate of return; acknowledges the Draghi report’s assessment that around four fifths of productive investments will be undertaken by the private sector in the EU, while public investment will also play a catalysing role; welcomes the Commission initiative to propose a competitiveness fund under the new multiannual financial framework and calls on it to make full use of financial guarantees to leverage private investment; stresses that the Member States must step up their efforts, in particular budgetary efforts, to accelerate innovation, digitalisation, education, training and decarbonisation, to strengthen European competitiveness and to reduce dependencies;

    Country-specific recommendations

    38.  Notes that the share of ‘fully implemented’ CSRs has dropped from 18,1 % (in the period 2011-2018) to 13,9 % (in the period 2019-2023); recalls that implementing CSRs, including with regard to the efficiency of public spending, is a key part of ensuring fiscal sustainability and addressing macroeconomic imbalances; advocates a more efficient implementation of the CSRs and the relevant reforms; calls for ways of increasing the share of ‘fully implemented’ CSRs to be explored; calls on the Commission to link the CSRs more closely to the respective country reports; calls for the impact of reforms and the progress towards reducing identified investment gaps to be evaluated; calls for greater transparency in the preparation of CSRs;

    39.  Reiterates, in this regard, that CSRs should be enhanced by focusing on a limited set of challenges, in particular specific Member States’ structural challenges and the EU’s common priorities, with a view to promoting sound and inclusive economic growth, enhancing competitiveness and macroeconomic stability, promoting the green and digital transitions and ensuring social and intergenerational fairness;

    40.  Recalls the Member States’ commitment to address, in their national fiscal plans, the relevant CSRs in both their economic and social dimensions, as expressed under the European Semester; notes that the Commission has found unaddressed CSRs in the national fiscal plans;

    41.  Highlights the importance of the CSRs in tackling the longer-term drivers of fiscal sustainability, including the sustainability and proper provision of public pension systems, the healthcare and long-term care systems in the face of demographic challenges such as ageing populations, and preparedness for adverse developments, including climate-change-related physical risks; stresses the relevance of CSRs in addressing the stability of the housing market in order to contribute to the economic resilience of the EU;

    o
    o   o

    42.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    (1) OJ L, 2024/1263, 30.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1263/oj.
    (2) OJ L, 2024/1264, 30.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1264/oj.
    (3) OJ L, 2024/1265, 30.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1265/oj.
    (4) OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1173/oj.
    (5) OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 8, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1174/oj.
    (6) OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1176/oj.
    (7) OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/472/oj.
    (8) OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 11, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/473/oj.
    (9) OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj.
    (10) OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/241/oj.
    (11) OJ C, C/2024/2807, 23.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2807/oj.
    (12) OJ C 428, 13.12.2017, p. 10.
    (13) OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 145.
    (14) Monetary Dialogue paper – ‘The new economic governance framework: implications for monetary policy’, Darvas, Z. et al. for the European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit, 20 November 2024.
    (15) In-depth analysis – ‘Economic Dialogue with the European Commission on EU Fiscal Surveillance’, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit, 1 December 2024.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data – P10_TA(2025)0030 – Wednesday, 12 March 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    (Consent)

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to the draft Council decision (08897/2024),

    –  having regard to the draft Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data (08896/2024),

    –  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 16(2) and Article 87(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C10-0125/2024),

    –  having regard to Rule 107(1) and (4), and Rule 117(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0013/2025),

    1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

    2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Canada.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer’s civil service reforms: what is mission-led government and why is it so hard to achieve?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Diamond, Professor of Public Policy, Queen Mary University of London

    All governments, it seems, are destined to go to war with Whitehall. The administration of Keir Starmer has been in power only nine months, but there are clear indications ministers are frustrated and dissatisfied with civil service performance.

    They have so far avoided the temptation to publicly vilify Whitehall officials for the government’s inability to deliver rapid progress. There is no repeat of the rhetoric that a hard rain is about to fall on the civil service, as Boris Johnson and his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, threatened in the aftermath of Brexit.

    Yet it is obvious that behind the scenes, senior figures in the Starmer administration believe the civil service is not functioning as it should. We’ve seen a flurry of announcements on reforming the machinery of government.

    The Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, unveiled plans to subject officials to performance reviews, while removing poorly performing civil servants from their posts. The prime minister made it clear he wants to cut back quangos (notably scrapping the health agency, NHS England) and ensure ministers, not regulators, take significant policy decisions.

    Meanwhile, there is a determination to unleash artificial intelligence, ensuring public sector productivity improves. Starmer believes the British state has become “flabby”, slow-moving and ineffectual.

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

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

    The apparent disconnect between ministers and the bureaucracy is scarcely surprising. Before coming to power, Labour had detailed plans to make British government “mission-orientated”.

    The Starmer administration declared in its first king’s speech that “mission-based government” would entail “a whole new way of governing” addressing “long-term, complex problems”. This mission mind-set is exemplified by the American general George S. Paton: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what you want them to achieve and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

    Missions are intended to galvanise UK government, involving the whole of society in the drive for once-in-a-generation reforms without micro-managing from the centre.

    At the outset, there was too little appreciation among officials of the challenge that mission-orientated government posed to traditional ways of working in Whitehall. Starmer’s first chief of staff, Sue Gray, was determined to emphasise a return to reciprocal partnership between ministers and mandarins given the turmoil and instability that afflicted British government in the Johnson/Liz Truss era.

    Yet the prime minister now appears more focused on change than continuity. The implications of mission-orientated governance are potentially transformational.

    Mission-led government in a nutshell

    The concept of mission-led government essentially rests on four principles:

    1. Bringing a long-term, strategic perspective to policy development. Missions focus on long-term goals for society, instead of short-term targets or milestones.

    2. Breaking down silos across the public sector. Different government services and agencies work together on missions, ensuring issues do not slip between the institutional cracks.

    3. Giving professionals working on the front line of public service delivery greater agency. The idea is that fewer rules and edicts mean staff can respond to pressing challenges, adapting organisations accordingly.

    4. Incorporating ideas and insights generated outside the civil service, challenging the traditional monopoly over policy and implementation. Missions involve external organisations at the outset.

    The reality on the ground

    Each of these ideas are important, yet there is too little recognition of the significant challenge they pose to the culture and practices of Whitehall.

    UK central government does not do strategy well – and the past 15 years have witnessed a cull of what strategic capability there was. Day-to-day operational management and cost-cutting has long been prized over long-term thinking.

    Breaking down silos is necessary, yet difficult to achieve. The problem isn’t so much the mindset or recalcitrance of civil servants, but the prevailing system of parliamentary accountability.

    Ministers are responsible for the public money that has been allocated to their department. This reinforces boundaries and makes shared working across departments less tenable. No government has resolved the problem of how to achieve joint working on key programmes with the right blend of incentives, including shared budgets.

    Moreover, civil servants, like ministers, are reluctant to give frontline staff greater autonomy. There is a culture of mistrust after 40 years of public management reform.

    There is also a prevailing belief that many public sector professionals are ultimately self-interested. Leaving professionals at the front line to get on with implementation is an attractive proposition, but difficult to achieve given Whitehall’s instinct to impose rules, regulations, oversight and monitoring.

    Constitutional arrangements are central to civil service reform.
    Shutterstock/Adam Cowell

    Meanwhile, many in Whitehall believe giving a voice to outside “interest groups” potentially corrupts the policy process. Officials view the ideas of thinktanks as flimsy and insubstantial (in fairness, proposals such as universal credit originated by the Centre for Social Justice in the late 2000s scarcely stood the test of time).

    None of this makes change in central government unattainable. But it emphasises that all governments need a concerted strategy for reform, including being willing to devote political resources, as few recent prime ministers have done.

    And, if the Starmer administration pursues a genuinely mission-orientated approach, it must confront the fundamental question of the constitutional relationship between ministers and civil servants. This is an issue successive governments have avoided since the late 1960s.

    There is a compelling argument that in delivering missions, senior officials ought to be publicly accountable for delivery, as is the case, for example, in New Zealand. Yet that would require the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to be overhauled. Many will agree it is an unhelpful facade that should have been dismantled a long time ago anyway.

    Patrick Diamond is a member of the Labour Party and the Fabian Society. He is a former government special adviser.

    – ref. Keir Starmer’s civil service reforms: what is mission-led government and why is it so hard to achieve? – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmers-civil-service-reforms-what-is-mission-led-government-and-why-is-it-so-hard-to-achieve-252230

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Putin mulls over US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal – but the initial signs aren’t positive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    While Donald Trump’s special envoy was en route to Moscow to talk about a possible ceasefire deal with his opposite numbers in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin enjoyed a meet-up with his old friend Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, and the atmosphere was reportedly congenial.

    According to the Guardian’s contemporaneous report, the pair even shared a macabre joke at a press conference after their meeting about Europe being “done for”. Putin hastened to clarify that when Lukashenko said if the US and Russia came to an agreement, Europe would be “done for” he had of course been enjoying a pun. Apparently, said Putin, “pipeline in Russian means also being done for, so this will be to Europe’s benefit, because they will get cheap Russian gas. So they will have a pipeline.”

    “That’s what I meant,” said Lukashenko. “Yes, that’s what I thought you did,” Putin replied. Smiles all round from the Russian media audience.

    Putin explained that while he’s technically in favour of a ceasefire, there were a few things that needed to be cleared up and that he and Donald Trump would have a phone call to do just that. Top of the list was “removing the root causes of this crisis”, which most observers are translating as Putin maintaining his demand for all four provinces Ukraine that Russian troops currently occupy and an undertaking by Kyiv never to join Nato.

    It’s unlikely to meet with the approval of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky has said he thinks that Putin will do “everything he can to drag out the war” – and Putin’s approach appears to bear this out. This accords with what Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko wrote in reaction to the news that the US and Ukraine were at last seeing eye to eye, at least on the need for a halt to the killing.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Wolff and Malyarenko, professors of international security at the University of Birmingham and National University Odesa Law Academy respectively, believe Putin will want to keep hostilities going as long as he can while still keeping in with the US president. They see Russia following a “two-pronged approach” – engaging with the White House over the ceasefire proposal while also pushing for further battlefield gains. They write:

    The peculiar set-up of the negotiations also plays into the Kremlin’s hands here. Short of direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow, Washington has to shuttle between them, trying to close gaps between their positions with a mixture of diplomacy and pressure. This has worked reasonably well with Ukraine so far, but it is far less certain that this approach will bear similar fruit with Russia.



    Read more:
    US and Ukraine sign 30-day ceasefire proposal – now the ball is in Putin’s court

    In all this shuttle diplomacy, one question that you hear more rarely is what the Ukrainian public will be prepared to accept. Over the past three years Gerard Toal of Virginia Tech University, John O’Loughlin of the University of Colorado and Kristin M. Bakke of UCL have provided us with some valuable insights based on polling of the Ukrainian public. They believe that while the majority of Ukrainians are war-weary and willing to make concessions, even ceding territory in return for peace, they are not willing to compromise their country’s political independence. They also don’t trust Putin and see the war in existential terms.

    And, contrary to what Trump might have the world believe, Zelensky remains a popular leader. In fact the latest poll finds his support up ten points on the previous survey at 67%. (Incidentally, Trump posted on his TruthSocial website recently that Zelensky’s approval rating was 4%.) They conclude:

    It will be in large part down to ordinary Ukrainians to shape what happens afterwards. An ugly peace may be accepted by a war-weary population. But if it has little local legitimacy and acceptance, peace is likely to be unsustainable in the long run.



    Read more:
    Are Ukrainians ready for ceasefire and concessions? Here’s what the polls say

    Russia, meanwhile, has weathered the conflict remarkably well, certainly better than the analysts who forecast in the summer of 2022. It that stage, when Ukraine’s counter-offensive was pushing the invaders out of occupied territory, inflicting major casualties and destroying huge amounts of equipment, some observers thought that Russia’s economy would collapse under the weight of defeat and western sanctions.

    Not so, writes Alexander Hill of the University of Calgary. Hill, a military historian, observes the ways in which the Russian war machine has adapted to conditions over the past two years, ditching the recklessness which saw it suffer such grievous losses in 2022 and using more conservative tactics coupled with smart adoption of new technology to give it an edge on the battlefield. He concludes: “While the Russian army remains a relatively blunt instrument, it is not as blunt as it was in late 2022 and early 2023.”



    Read more:
    Why Russia’s armed forces have proven resilient in the war in Ukraine

    Turning off US aid

    Of course, when the US suspended its intelligence-sharing for a few days last week it was a major boost for the Russians. Without data from US satellite coverage and other intelligence traffic, Ukraine’s defenders were left virtually deaf and blind at a crucial time. It gave Russia the space to push its advantage even further as it races to take more territory ahead of a possible peace deal.

    The state of the conflict in Ukraine, March 10 2025.
    Institute for the Study of War

    It’s a bitter lesson for Ukraine to have to learn at this stage in the conflict, write Dafydd Townley and Matthew Powell, experts in international security and strategy at the University of Portsmouth. They believe relying too heavily on one ally for so much was never going to be a good idea and has been exposed as risky since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Perhaps even more risky, given the personality involved, is Ukraine’s dependence on data from ELon Musk’s Starlink satellite system. Musk himself has boasted that: “My Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army. Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.”

    Egotistical self-promotion aside, Musk is probably right about this, but less so when he says there’s no alternative. Townley and Powell believe that it’s in Ukraine’s best interests to look into other satellite systems available to them and note that shares in French-owned satellite company Eutelsat, a European rival to Starlink have recently climbed by almost 400%.



    Read more:
    The US has lifted its intelligence sharing pause with Ukraine. But the damage may already be done

    Many of us who are watching this conflict closely cringed when Trump announced he would cut off military assistance to Ukraine after his (one-sided, it has to be said) shouting match with Volodymyr Zelensky at the end of February. And the announcement that the Pentagon was halting intelligence-sharing as noted above simply made matters worse.

    It felt like a spiteful move. Psychologist Simon McCarthy-Jones of Trinity College, Dublin, has written a book about spite which delves into, among other things, exhibitions of spitefulness in the public arena. It’s a fascinating read. A spiteful approach to foreign policy, he writes, is when we abandon what he calls “humanity’s superpower” – cooperation.

    Trump’s approach, as exemplified by his treatment of Zelensky and also by his baffling decision to impose tariffs even on his friends and allies, “embraces selfishness, treating international relations as a zero-sum game where there can only be one winner”.



    Read more:
    Donald Trump’s foreign policy might be driven by simple spite – here’s what to do about it

    One of the sticking points between the US and Ukraine has been the question of security guarantees in case of a ceasefire or even a longer-term peace deal. It seems increasingly far-fetched that Ukraine will be allowed to join Nato any time soon, so Nato article 5 protections, which would mean that all other member states would be obliged to come to its defence, will not be an issue.

    Trump’s vice-president, J.D. Vance, has suggested that if Ukraine allows US companies access to its mineral resources this would in itself be a security guarantee feels equally improbable. And, in any case, how valuable have US security guarantees been in the past, asks historian Ian Horwood, of York St John University. Horwood pints to the Paris Peace accords of 1973 in which the Nixon administration promised to underwrite South Vietnam’s continued security, while withdrawing US combat troops. Within two years, North Vietnamese tanks were rolling into Saigon.

    More recently the Doha agreement between the first Trump administration and the Taliban was made without involving the Afghan government and didn’t even last long enough for US and Nato troops to get out of Kabul. This sorry history will no doubt have given Zelensky food for thought.



    Read more:
    What is the value of US security guarantees? Here’s what history shows

    Ukraine’s mineral wealth

    All the while many of us have been asking what’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals. We’ve long known about the country as the “bread basket of Europe”, but what is not as widely understood is Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Geologist Munira Raji of the University of Plymouth, says Ukraine has deposits containing 22 of 34 critical minerals identified by the European Union as essential for energy security. This, she says, positions Ukraine among the world’s most resource-rich nations.

    Much of this cornucopia of geological booty is contained in what is known as the “Ukrainian shield” which sits underneath much of the country, writes Raji. Here she walks us through the riches beneath Ukraine’s soil and why America is so keen to get its hands on them.



    Read more:
    What’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals? A geologist explains

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. Putin mulls over US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal – but the initial signs aren’t positive – https://theconversation.com/putin-mulls-over-us-ukrainian-ceasefire-proposal-but-the-initial-signs-arent-positive-252225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UN Human Rights Council 58: UK Statement for the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    World news story

    UN Human Rights Council 58: UK Statement for the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment

    UK Statement for the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment. Delivered at the 58th HRC in Geneva.

    Thank you Madam Vice-President.

    The United Kingdom thanks the Special Rapporteur for these reports.

    The ocean is essential for all life on Earth. As the legal framework for all activities in the ocean, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] is fundamental to its protection, and an essential enabler for a healthy planet, global prosperity and security. The UK is committed to ratifying the UNCLOS BBNJ [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction] Implementing Agreement, and to seeing it enter into force as quickly as possible.

    The UK chairs the Global Ocean Alliance of 77 countries that champions ambitious ocean action. The Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration, adopted last year, recognised the need for collective action, and emphasised the need to ensure participation and empowerment of all people in ocean-related decision making and benefit-sharing.

    The report on the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the Maldives brings into focus the need for global cooperation in tackling the climate and nature crisis. The UK’s Foreign Secretary has made clear his commitment to forging a more equal partnership with the Global South. Without this, there can be no climate stability.

    Special Rapporteur, what more can States do to support those on the frontline of the impacts of the climate and nature emergency?

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Preston Co-Operative Development Network Cooking Programme in Conjunction with Kind Communities CIC

    Source: City of Preston

    Since minoritised communities are traditionally under-served by mainstream enterprise schemes, Preston Co-operative Development Network (PCDN) in conjunction with Kind Communities CIC, designed and delivered a structured enterprise training programme for female cooks from underrepresented communities.

    The programme was funded by Preston City Council through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF).

    The ‘Lady Boss’ programme engaged with a group of 10 non-registered, home- based female cooks from minority communities, interested in gaining the requisite food safety qualification, registering with the local authority for food safety purposes, and incorporating as a business.

    70% of the group came from Preston’s most deprived wards, and 60% were non- native English speakers. To ensure language and cultural barriers were overcome, and legal and technical concepts understood, the programme was led by a multi-lingual PCDN Consultant and completely female led, in accordance with the group’s preferences.

    The 6 full-day programme consisted of workshops followed by facilitator-guided small group support, with mentors who had faced and successfully overcome the same challenges as group participants. By the end of the programme, all members had achieved Level 2 Food Safety certification, and 70% had successfully started trading.

    Adeela, a course participant said:

    ‘The amount the course has covered, and the support and training received has really helped me build my confidence.’

    Sangeetha, an attendee said:

    ‘I was able to understand how to start a home business and really enjoyed every weekly session.’

    Maria who also did the course said:

    ‘The trainer was very friendly. She explained everything very nicely and shared her own experience which was also helpful for us.’

    The initial aim of the programme was to encourage individual business set up and growth. As a result, the group has expressed its hope of collaboratively purchasing ingredients, cooking and catering.

    The group catered for Preston City Council’s International Women’s Day event, working together to cook and serve a three-course meal for 50 people. As testimony to their culinary skills, two Preston based organisations have asked them to cater at upcoming events. It is hoped that if the success continues, the group may explore forming a co-operative. Further support and training will be provided by PCDN to facilitate this.

    Councillor Nweeda Khan – Cabinet Member for Communities and Social Justice said:

    “This is a wonderful initiative, and it has been a pleasure to see how Lady Boss participants have not only grown in skills and knowledge but also in confidence and I look forward to seeing where this journey takes them next.”

    The Lady Boss programme highlights the importance of understanding and responding to societal changes. The message of co-operatives and co-operation is one that resonates widely across the population, and needs to become more inclusive to include historically disenfranchised groups.

    The UK Shared Prosperity Fund from the UK government provides £2.6 billion of funding for local investment by March 2025. The Fund aims to improve pride in place and increase life chances across the UK investing in communities and place, supporting local business, and people and skills.

    For more information, visit: GOV.UK – UK Shared Prosperity Fund: prospectus.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Trader who defrauded customers handed suspended jail term 14 March 2025 Isle of Wight trader who defrauded customers handed suspended jail term

    Source: Aisle of Wight

    An Island trader has been handed a suspended two-year jail term following an Isle of Wight Council investigation that uncovered fraudulent activities amounting to more than £162,000.

    Scott Richard Carpenter appeared before the Isle of Wight Crown Court yesterday (Thursday) for sentencing after pleading guilty to two counts of participating in fraudulent trading at an earlier hearing.

    The offences took place between May 2021 and October 2022 when Carpenter was trading under the unregistered business name Bespoke Carpentry and Building Services IOW.

    Operating as a sole trader, the 41-year-old defrauded six customers, resulting in an estimated financial loss of £162,686, though Carpenter disputes the full figure.

    An investigation by Trading Standards revealed consumers paid Carpenter for work and materials that were either not provided, not provided on time, or not provided to a satisfactory standard.

    The victims, who suffered significant financial and emotional distress, provided statements that were crucial to building the case against the defendant.

    The court heard Carpenter attributed some of his failure to fulfil contracts to extensive medical issues, though investigators found some of his claims were not substantiated by his medical records. This included claims he was suffering from bowel cancer.

    Carpenter accepted he overstated his health concerns and told many lies to placate his consumers.

    Sentencing Carpenter to two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, Mr Recorder Dow noted the profound impact on the victims, stating that “who could fail to be moved by the accounts of the victims.”

    He emphasised that “this is a small island” and Carpenter’s crimes had affected the entire community. The judge concluded that, “on the narrowest of balances,” he could suspend the sentence but stressed that “it is not a let off.”

    Carpenter was also given a 182-day curfew (from 7pm to 7am), coupled with a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement.

    It was made clear to Carpenter that if he breached any of the requirements, or committed any further offence during the next two years, the court could activate the suspended sentence.

    Speaking after the hearing, James Potter, the council’s Trading Standards and community safety manager, said: “This prosecution underscores our commitment to protecting consumers from fraudulent practices.

    “We will continue to pursue justice for those affected and ensure that traders who engage in deceitful activities are held accountable.

    “The financial and emotional distress caused to the victims in this case is significant, and we hope this outcome serves as a deterrent to others who might consider similar actions.”

    Councillor Karen Lucioni, Cabinet member for community safety, added: “This case highlights the importance of vigilance and the need for consumers to be aware of their rights. We are committed to supporting victims and ensuring that justice is served.”

    The council is now seeking a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to claw back the losses for Carpenter’s victims.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Problem properties undergo “heavenly” transformation

    Source: City of Liverpool

    Two properties in Liverpool which were closed due to anti-social behaviour linked to organised crime have been transformed.

    Over the last two years, the council’s Private Sector Housing team have worked in partnership with Merseyside Police to tackle organised crime within rental properties across Liverpool.

    Under the Council’s Landlord Licensing scheme, the owners of privately rented properties have a duty to ensure that their tenants behave responsibly.

    The Council works to support and advise landlords who have issues with their tenants, and when all other options have been exhausted, this can include the eviction of problematic tenants.

    Houses on Goldie Street, in Anfield, and Geraint Street, in Toxteth, were closed in August 2022 and April 2024 respectively under the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Crime and Policing Act 2014. The action was taken due to drug related issues associated with the properties were having a detrimental impact on the local community.

    Using powers granted under the Council’s Landlord Licensing scheme, the anti-social behaviour team were able to aid the landlords in evicting the highly problematic tenants.

    The properties were refurbished to a high standard, and they were subsequently let out to new tenants to prevent a repeat of the problems that had previously occurred.

    Over the last month, the Private Sector Housing team have revisited both properties to carry out compliance inspections, finding both to be a safe standard with the current tenants are delighted to be making their home there.

    One resident in Geraint Street told council officers that anti-social behaviour used to severely impact her wellbeing but now describes life on the street as “heavenly”.

    On Goldie Street, a local resident noted that what was once a troubled street is now “family-orientated” adding: “It’s nice to have a family living there and the children are back playing out in the street.”

    Cllr Laura Robertson-Collins, Cabinet member for neighbourhoods and community safety, said: “All of our residents have a right to live in thriving communities where they feel safe and secure, but sadly we know that some don’t.

    “The work that has been under taken on these streets in Anfield and Toxteth has made a positive difference to the lives of local people.

    “It is a clear demonstration of the positive benefits of our Landlord Licensing scheme in bringing partners together to support landlords to evict difficult tenants.”

    Anfield councillor, Billy Marrat, who referred the issue to the Private Sector Housing Team, said: “The house has been turned around and so has the street, with residents stating they are free to go about their ways and not in fear of being intimidated by drug and crack addicts.

    “The residents can actually invite their friends and relatives around now, just as any other family would.

    “I am really grateful to all the agencies involved and it shows what can be done with a bit of intelligence and the right actions taken.”

    Chief Inspector Sarah Rotherham from Merseyside Police, said: “The successful closures send a clear message that we will not tolerate properties to become hubs for crime and antisocial behaviour.

    “By working closely with our local authority partners through the landlord licensing scheme, we are ensuring that problem premises are shut down, and our communities remain safe places to live.”

    • To contact the Private Sector Housing team about issues related to privately rented properties, email privatesector.housing@liverpool.gov.uk or contact them online.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Charlevoix

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Press release

    Joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Charlevoix

    A joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Charlevoix

    1. We the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met in Charlevoix on March 12 to 14, 2025. 

    Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security

    1. We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence.

    2. We welcomed ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire, and in particular the meeting on March 11 between the U.S. and Ukraine in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We applauded Ukraine’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire, which is an essential step towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the Charter of the United Nations.

    3. We called for Russia to reciprocate by agreeing to a ceasefire on equal terms and implementing it fully. We discussed imposing further costs on Russia in case such a ceasefire is not agreed, including through further sanctions, caps on oil prices, as well as additional support for Ukraine, and other means. This includes the use of extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets. We underlined the importance of confidence-building measures under a ceasefire including the release of prisoners of war and detainees—both military and civilian—and the return of Ukrainian children.

    4. We emphasized that any ceasefire must be respected and underscored the need for robust and credible security arrangements to ensure that Ukraine can deter and defend against any renewed acts of aggression. We stated that we will continue to coordinate economic and humanitarian support to promote the early recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, including at the Ukraine Recovery Conference which will take place in Rome on July 10-11, 2025.

    5. We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war and of the reconstitution of Russia’s armed forces. We reiterated our intention to continue to take action against such third countries.

    6. We expressed alarm about the impacts of the war, especially on civilians and on civilian infrastructure. We discussed the importance of accountability and reaffirmed our commitment to work together to achieve a durable peace and to ensure that Ukraine remains democratic, free, strong and prosperous.   

    Regional peace and stability in the Middle East  

    1. We called for the release of all hostages and for the hostages’ remains held by Hamas in Gaza to be returned to their loved ones. We reaffirmed our support for the resumption of unhindered humanitarian aid into Gaza and for a permanent ceasefire. We underscored the imperative of a political horizon for the Palestinian people, achieved through a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples and advances comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity. We noted serious concern over the growing tensions and hostilities in the West Bank and calls for de-escalation.

    2. We recognized Israel’s inherent right to defend itself consistent with international law. We unequivocally condemned Hamas, including for its brutal and unjustified terror attacks on October 7, 2023, and the harm inflicted on the hostages during their captivity and the violation of their dignity through the use of ‘handover ceremonies’ during their release. We reiterated that Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future and must never again be a threat to Israel. We affirmed our readiness to engage with Arab partners on their proposals to chart a way forward on reconstruction in Gaza and build a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

    3. We expressed our support for the people of Syria and Lebanon, as both countries work towards peaceful and stable political futures. At this critical juncture, we reiterated the importance of Syria’s and Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We called unequivocally for the rejection of terrorism in Syria. We condemned strongly the recent escalation of violence in the coastal regions of Syria, and called for the protection of civilians and for perpetrators of atrocities to be held accountable. We stressed the critical importance of an inclusive and Syrian-led political process. We welcomed the commitment by the Syrian interim government to work with the OPCW in eliminating all remaining chemical weapons.

    4. We stressed that Iran is the principal source of regional instability and must never be allowed to develop and acquire a nuclear weapon. We emphasized that Iran must now change course, de-escalate and choose diplomacy. We underscored the threat of Iran’s growing use of arbitrary detention and foreign assassination attempts as a tool of coercion.

    Cooperation to increase security and resilience across the Indo-Pacific  

    1. We reiterated our commitment to upholding a free, open, prosperous and secure Indo-Pacific, based on sovereignty, territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

    2. We remain seriously concerned by the situations in the East China Sea as well as the South China Sea and continue to oppose strongly unilateral attempts to change the status quo, in particular by force and coercion. We expressed concern over the increasing use of dangerous maneuvers and water cannons against Philippines and Vietnamese vessels as well as efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarization and coercion in the South China Sea, in violation of international law. We emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We encouraged the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues and reiterated our opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We also expressed support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations.  

    3. We remain concerned with China’s military build-up and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal. We called on China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions and promote stability through transparency.

    4. We emphasized that China should not conduct or condone activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions.

    5. We expressed concerns about China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions. We further called on China to refrain from adopting export control measures that could lead to significant supply chain disruptions. We reiterated that we are not trying to harm China or thwart its economic growth, indeed a growing China that plays by international rules and norms would be of global interest.

    6. We demanded that the DPRK abandon all its nuclear weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction as well as ballistic missile programs in accordance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. We expressed our serious concerns over, and the need to address together, the DPRK’s cryptocurrency thefts. We called on DPRK to resolve the abductions issue immediately. 

    7. We denounced the brutal repression of the people of Myanmar by the military regime and called for an end to all violence and for unhindered humanitarian access. 

    Building stability and resilience in Haiti and Venezuela

    1. We strongly denounced the ongoing horrifying violence that continues to be perpetrated by gangs in Haiti in their efforts to seize control of the government. We reaffirmed our commitment to helping the Haitian people restore democracy, security and stability, including through support to the Haitian National Police and Kenya-led Multinational Security Support Mission and an increased role for the UN. We expressed support for Haitian authorities’ efforts to create a specialized anti-corruption jurisdiction that complies with the highest international standards.

    2. We reiterated our call for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela in line with the aspirations of the Venezuelan people who peacefully voted on July 28, 2024, for change, the cessation of repression and arbitrary or unjust detentions of peaceful protestors including youth by Nicolas Maduro’s regime, as well as the unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners. We also agreed Venezuelan naval vessels threatening Guyana’s commercial vessels is unacceptable and an infringement of Guyana’s internationally recognized sovereign rights. We reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations as an enduring value.

    Supporting lasting peace in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

    1. We unequivocally denounced the ongoing fighting and atrocities in Sudan, including sexual violence against women and girls, which have led to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and the spread of famine. We called for the warring parties to protect civilians, cease hostilities, and ensure unhindered humanitarian access, and urged external actors to end their support fueling the conflict. 

    2. We condemned the Rwanda-backed M23 offensive in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the resulting violence, displacement and grave human rights and international humanitarian law violations. This offensive constitutes a flagrant disregard of the territorial integrity of the DRC. We reiterated our call for M23 and the Rwanda Defence Force to withdraw from all controlled areas. We urged all parties to support the mediation led by the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community, to promote accountability for human rights abuses by all armed actors, including M23 and the FDLR, and to commit to a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the conflict, including the meaningful participation of women and youth.

    Strengthening sanctions and countering hybrid warfare and sabotage

    1. We welcomed efforts to strengthen the Sanctions Working Group focused on listings and enforcement. We also welcomed discussions on the establishment of a Hybrid Warfare and Sabotage Working Group, and of a Latin America Working Group.

    Updates to this page

    Published 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Kent taxi driver jailed after inflating turnover to secure three Covid loans

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Kent taxi driver jailed after inflating turnover to secure three Covid loans

    Jail for taxi driver who abused Covid Bounce Back Loan Scheme

    • Taxi driver Nelson Clark dishonestly secured three Covid Bounce Back Loans worth a combined £130,000 

    • Clark fraudulently overstated his turnover on the applications and failed to use the money for his businesses as he was required to do 

    • The 34-year-old has been jailed following investigations into his applications by the Insolvency Service 

    A Kent taxi driver has been jailed after exploiting a government-backed Covid loan scheme on three separate occasions during the pandemic. 

    Nelson Clark fraudulently applied for three Bounce Back Loans in 2020 by significantly exaggerating his turnover. 

    He then used the funds for personal use, breaking the rules of the scheme again. 

    Clark, 34, of Silver Birch Close, Dartford, was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison when he appeared at Croydon Crown Court on Thursday 13 March. 

    David Snasdell, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said: 

    Nelson Clark deliberately targeted a scheme which was set up to support genuine small businesses through Covid. 

    Clark made false representations on not just one occasion, but three times within a two-month period. His actions were clearly dishonest and he made matters worse by spending the money he received for his own personal benefit. 

    Five years on from the start of the pandemic, the Insolvency Service remains committed to taking action against the fraudsters who cynically applied for money they were not entitled to during a national emergency.

    Clark first applied to the bank for a £30,000 Bounce Back Loan in May 2020 on behalf of his N Clark Taxis business. 

    In the application, Clark claimed his annual turnover was £120,000. But Insolvency Service analysis revealed this was an over-estimate of around £70,000. 

    Two months later, Clark dishonestly secured a further £100,000 in Bounce Back Loan funds from different banks under the names of Nelson Clark Management and Rosewood Motors. 

    In both applications, Clark obtained £50,000 by falsely claiming his turnover for both businesses was £200,000 each. 

    Significant amounts of the £130,000 Clark fraudulently secured were used for personal purposes, including transfers of £80,000 to a third party. 

    Clark was declared bankrupt in August 2021 and signed a 10-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Undertaking in March 2022, restricting him from being able to borrow more than £500 without disclosing his bankrupt status. 

    The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

    Further information 

    Updates to this page

    Published 14 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Social Work Forum 2025

    Source: Scotland – Highland Council

    Social Workers in The Highland Council in partnership with NHS Highland are hosting a Joint Social Workers’ Forum to celebrate World Social Worker’s Day 2025 on 18 March 2025 at The Barn Church, Inverness.

    This year’s event theme: “Strengthening Intergenerational Solidarity for Enduring Wellbeing” – will see a celebration of the profession. Workers from Justice, Child Health, Adult Services, Children’s Services, and Emergency Social Work Service will come together for a day of inputs and workshops.

    In attendance will be, Iain Ramsay, Professional Social Work Adviser Scottish Government and Karin Herber, Professional Officer SASW (Scottish Association of Social Workers) to Highland.

    Iain Ramsay will deliver a presentation on the role of Social Workers and their value and positive influence in today’s society. Followed by workshops on the Social Work Education and Learning and how to sustain our love for Social Work and keeping ourselves well.

    Also in attendance is Dr Vik Kelly-Teare, Associate Dean of Health Social Care and Life Sciences at UHI who will present her research on Domestic Abuse in Same Sex relationships.

    The Forum will be opened by Fiona Duncan, Chief Social Work Officer (Highland Council), alongside Simon Steer, Director of Adult Social Care (NHS Highland).

    Fiona Duncan commented “As Social Workers, we are looking forward to this annual conference to share practice both locally and nationally, network within Highland and reflect on the positive and invaluable contributions Social Workers make across the Highlands”. 

    14 Mar 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Charlevoix (14 Mar. 2025)

    Source: Republic of France in English
    The Republic of France has issued the following statement:

    We the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met in Charlevoix on March 12 to 14, 2025.

    Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security

    We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence.

    We welcomed ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire, and in particular the meeting on March 11 between the U.S. and Ukraine in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We applauded Ukraine’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire, which is an essential step towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the Charter of the United Nations.

    We called for Russia to reciprocate by agreeing to a ceasefire on equal terms and implementing it fully. We discussed imposing further costs on Russia in case such a ceasefire is not agreed, including through further sanctions, caps on oil prices, as well as additional support for Ukraine, and other means. This includes the use of extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets. We underlined the importance of confidence-building measures under a ceasefire including the release of prisoners of war and detainees—both military and civilian—and the return of Ukrainian children.

    We emphasized that any ceasefire must be respected and underscored the need for robust and credible security arrangements to ensure that Ukraine can deter and defend against any renewed acts of aggression. We stated that we will continue to coordinate economic and humanitarian support to promote the early recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, including at the Ukraine Recovery Conference which will take place in Rome on July 10-11, 2025.

    We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war and of the reconstitution of Russia’s armed forces. We reiterated our intention to continue to take action against such third countries.

    We expressed alarm about the impacts of the war, especially on civilians and on civilian infrastructure. We discussed the importance of accountability and reaffirmed our commitment to work together to achieve a durable peace and to ensure that Ukraine remains democratic, free, strong and prosperous.

    Regional peace and stability in the Middle East

    We called for the release of all hostages and for the hostages’ remains held by Hamas in Gaza to be returned to their loved ones. We reaffirmed our support for the resumption of unhindered humanitarian aid into Gaza and for a permanent ceasefire. We underscored the imperative of a political horizon for the Palestinian people, achieved through a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples and advances comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity. We noted serious concern over the growing tensions and hostilities in the West Bank and calls for de-escalation.

    We recognized Israel’s inherent right to defend itself consistent with international law. We unequivocally condemned Hamas, including for its brutal and unjustified terror attacks on October 7, 2023, and the harm inflicted on the hostages during their captivity and the violation of their dignity through the use of ‘handover ceremonies’ during their release. We reiterated that Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future and must never again be a threat to Israel. We affirmed our readiness to engage with Arab partners on their proposals to chart a way forward on reconstruction in Gaza and build a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

    We expressed our support for the people of Syria and Lebanon, as both countries work towards peaceful and stable political futures. At this critical juncture, we reiterated the importance of Syria’s and Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We called unequivocally for the rejection of terrorism in Syria. We condemned strongly the recent escalation of violence in the coastal regions of Syria, and called for the protection of civilians and for perpetrators of atrocities to be held accountable. We stressed the critical importance of an inclusive and Syrian-led political process. We welcomed the commitment by the Syrian interim government to work with the OPCW in eliminating all remaining chemical weapons.

    We stressed that Iran is the principal source of regional instability and must never be allowed to develop and acquire a nuclear weapon. We emphasized that Iran must now change course, de-escalate and choose diplomacy. We underscored the threat of Iran’s growing use of arbitrary detention and foreign assassination attempts as a tool of coercion.

    Cooperation to increase security and resilience across the Indo-Pacific

    We reiterated our commitment to upholding a free, open, prosperous and secure Indo-Pacific, based on sovereignty, territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

    We remain seriously concerned by the situations in the East China Sea as well as the South China Sea and continue to oppose strongly unilateral attempts to change the status quo, in particular by force and coercion. We expressed concern over the increasing use of dangerous maneuvers and water cannons against Philippines and Vietnamese vessels as well as efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarization and coercion in the South China Sea, in violation of international law. We emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We encouraged the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues and reiterated our opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We also expressed support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations.

    We remain concerned with China’s military build-up and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal. We called on China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions and promote stability through transparency.

    We emphasized that China should not conduct or condone activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions.16. We expressed concerns about China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions. We further called on China to refrain from adopting export control measures that could lead to significant supply chain disruptions. We reiterated that we are not trying to harm China or thwart its economic growth, indeed a growing China that plays by international rules and norms would be of global interest.

    We demanded that the DPRK abandon all its nuclear weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction as well as ballistic missile programs in accordance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. We expressed our serious concerns over, and the need to address together, the DPRK’s cryptocurrency thefts. We called on DPRK to resolve the abductions issue immediately.

    We denounced the brutal repression of the people of Myanmar by the military regime and called for an end to all violence and for unhindered humanitarian access.

    Building stability and resilience in Haiti and Venezuela

    We strongly denounced the ongoing horrifying violence that continues to be perpetrated by gangs in Haiti in their efforts to seize control of the government. We reaffirmed our commitment to helping the Haitian people restore democracy, security and stability, including through support to the Haitian National Police and Kenya-led Multinational Security Support Mission and an increased role for the UN. We expressed support for Haitian authorities’ efforts to create a specialized anti-corruption jurisdiction that complies with the highest international standards.

    We reiterated our call for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela in line with the aspirations of the Venezuelan people who peacefully voted on July 28, 2024, for change, the cessation of repression and arbitrary or unjust detentions of peaceful protestors including youth by Nicolas Maduro’s regime, as well as the unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners. We also agreed Venezuelan naval vessels threatening Guyana’s commercial vessels is unacceptable and an infringement of Guyana’s internationally recognized sovereign rights. We reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations as an enduring value.

    Supporting lasting peace in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

    We unequivocally denounced the ongoing fighting and atrocities in Sudan, including sexual violence against women and girls, which have led to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and the spread of famine. We called for the warring parties to protect civilians, cease hostilities, and ensure unhindered humanitarian access, and urged external actors to end their support fueling the conflict.

    We condemned the Rwanda-backed M23 offensive in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the resulting violence, displacement and grave human rights and international humanitarian law violations. This offensive constitutes a flagrant disregard of the territorial integrity of the DRC. We reiterated our call for M23 and the Rwanda Defence Force to withdraw from all controlled areas. We urged all parties to support the mediation led by the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community, to promote accountability for human rights abuses by all armed actors, including M23 and the FDLR, and to commit to a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the conflict, including the meaningful participation of women and youth.

    Strengthening sanctions and countering hybrid warfare and sabotage

    We welcomed efforts to strengthen the Sanctions Working Group focused on listings and enforcement. We also welcomed discussions on the establishment of a Hybrid Warfare and Sabotage Working Group, and of a Latin America Working Group.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: At a Glance – Plenary round-up – March 2025 – 14-03-2025

    Source: European Parliament 2

    The future of European Union defence unsurprisingly topped the March 2025 plenary session agenda. Members held a debate on Europe’s security architecture and the EU’s unwavering support for Ukraine, in the presence of the Presidents of the European Council, and European Commission. Debates also took place on the conclusions of the 6 March special European Council meeting and preparation of the regular meeting on 20 21 March 2025. Members marked International Women’s Day with addresses from guests representing European women fighting for freedom and peace: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of Belarus’ democratic forces; Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, a former political prisoner in Belarus; Leniie Umerova, a Crimean Tatar activist; and Tata Kepler, Ukrainian medical volunteer and activist. Members also discussed Council and Commission statements on the Roadmap for Women’s Rights. Debates followed Council and Commission statements on the deteriorating situation in Gaza and secessionist threats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the clean industrial deal, and action plans for the automotive industry and affordable energy. Debates looked at the Commission’s vision for agriculture and food, and the first ‘omnibus’ simplification proposals, as well as on supporting EU regions vulnerable to the effects of climate change; the social and employment aspects of restructuring processes; EU Consumers Day, and the European Schools Alliance.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: OSCE supports Moldovan law enforcement in enhancing risk assessment and analysis

    Source: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – OSCE

    Headline: OSCE supports Moldovan law enforcement in enhancing risk assessment and analysis

    The OSCE organized a series of meetings focused on risk identification, analysis and management for representatives from the Moldovan General Police Inspectorate (GPI) and the Moldovan General Inspectorate of Border Police (GIBP) in Chisinau, Moldova, from 12 to 14 March. The discussions brought together representatives from key law enforcement bodies, including the Strategic Management Directorate, Operational Management Directorate and Information Analysis Directorate. The participants focused on improving risk assessment methodologies, identifying emerging threats and strengthening interagency co-operation.
    Additionally, a dedicated Working Group on Risk Assessment and Analysis convened at the GPI to review the current risk analysis methodology on 13 March. The meeting facilitated discussions on risk assessment frameworks, operational challenges and strategies to enhance risk mitigation. Key action points to strengthen institutional resilience were identified, such as the need to support the GPI in further developing the risk analysis methodology, applying this methodology in practice, and enhancing both intra-institutional and inter-institutional collaboration.
    “Effective law enforcement relies on systematic risk identification and analysis. By proactively assessing threats—including crime trends, operational vulnerabilities, and institutional risks such as corruption—police forces can enhance resilience, optimize resources, and uphold public trust through informed and accountable decision-making,” said Alina Grottenthaler, Project Officer at the OSCE Secretariat’s Transnational Threats Department/Strategic Police Matters Unit.
    These activities are implemented as part of the extrabudgetary project “Support to the Law Enforcement Agencies in Moldova in Response to the Security Challenges in the Region” funded by the UK Government that bolsters Moldova’s law enforcement capabilities in countering transnational threats.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Treatment for Parkinson’s disease and restless leg syndrome is linked with risky behaviour – here’s what you need to know

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

    Orawan Pattarawimonchai/Shutterstock

    Getting a headache and feeling sick are common side-effects for many medicines. Indulging in risky sexual behaviour or pathological gambling – not so common.

    But a BBC investigation has highlighted that some drug treatments for restless leg syndrome and Parkinson’s disease can lead to such risky behaviour.

    Over 150,000 people in the UK live with Parkinson’s – a degenerative condition that affects the brain. The main part of their brain that is damaged is the area that produces dopamine, a chemical messenger that regulates movement. Less dopamine in the brain can lead to symptoms such as tremors, muscle stiffness, slow movements and problems with balance.

    Another movement disorder is restless legs syndrome (RLS), which affects between 5% and 10% of people in the UK, US and Europe. Twice as many women as men have RLS among those aged over 35.



    Read more:
    Restless legs syndrome is incurable – here’s how to manage the symptoms

    People with RLS feel they need to uncontrollably move their legs, and may experience a crawling, creeping or tingling sensation in them. Usually, the symptoms are worse at night when dopamine levels tend to be lower. Although the exact cause of RLS is unknown, it has been linked to genes, underlying health conditions, and an imbalance of dopamine.

    One of the main treatments for movement disorders is a group of drugs called dopamine-receptor agonists, which include cabergoline, ropinirole, bromocriptine and pramipexole. Dopamine-receptor agonists increase the levels of dopamine in the brain and help regulate movement.

    Dopamine is known as the “happy” hormone because it is part of the brain’s reward system. When people do something fun or pleasurable, dopamine is released in their brain. But using dopamine-receptor agonist drugs can elevate these feelings, leading to impulsive behaviour.

    While common side-effects include headaches, feeling sick and sleepiness, these drugs are also linked with the more unusual side-effect of impulse-control disorders. These include risky sexual behaviour (hypersexuality), pathological gambling, compulsive shopping, and binge eating. Hypersexuality encompasses behaviour such as a stronger-than-usual urge to have sexual activity, or being unable to resist performing a sexual act that may be harmful.

    Previous reported cases include a 53-year-old woman taking ropinirole and exhibiting impulsive behaviour such as accessing internet pornography, using sex chat rooms, meeting strangers for sexual intercourse, and compulsive shopping. Another case highlighted a 32-year-old man who, after taking ropinirole, started binge eating and gambling compulsively, such that he lost his life savings.

    When the drug was first being prescribed in the early 2000s, it was thought that impulse-control disorders were a rare side-effect associated with these drugs. But in 2007, a UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) public assessment report advised that “healthcare professionals should warn patients that compulsive behaviour with dopamine agonists may be dose-related”.

    Between 6% and 17% of people with RLS who take dopamine agonists develop some form of impulse-control disorder, while up to 20% of people living with Parkinson’s may experience impulse control disorders.

    But the true figures may be even higher, as many some patients may not associate changes in behaviour with their medication, or may be too embarrassed to report it. Case reports show that in most instances, impulsive behaviour stops when the drug is stopped.

    Lawsuits

    There have been several individual and class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline, which produces ReQuip® (ropinirole), and Pfizer, which makes Cabaser® (cabergoline). Patients taking action against these companies claimed they were unaware of these impulsive behaviour side-effects.

    For example, in 2012, a French court ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay £160,000 in damages to Didier Jambart, after he experienced “devastating-side effects” when taking the firm’s Parkinson’s drug Requip. And in 2014, an Australian federal court approved a settlement against Pfizer for a class-action lawsuit regarding its Parkinson’s drug, Cabaser. 150 patients claimed they did not have warning of potential side-effects – including increased gambling, sex addiction and other high-risk activities – of taking Cabaser.

    It is now clearer in the patient information leaflets given with all prescribed medication for movement disorders that impulsive behaviour can occur in some patients.

    In 2023, the MHRA advised there had been increased reports of pathological gambling with a drug called aripiprazole. This antipsychotic drug, used in the treatment of schizophrenia and mania, partly acts as a dopamine-receptor agonist.

    Any drug that increases dopamine levels could theoretically be linked to impulse control disorders, and it is important to keep monitoring patients and their behaviour in such cases.

    Not everyone will experience side-effects. Before you begin any course of treatment, your doctor or pharmacist should explain the potential side-effects – but it is also important to read the information leaflet with any medicine. And if you experience any impulsive behaviours with these medicines, speak to your doctor or pharmacist immediately.

    Dipa Kamdar 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. Treatment for Parkinson’s disease and restless leg syndrome is linked with risky behaviour – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/treatment-for-parkinsons-disease-and-restless-leg-syndrome-is-linked-with-risky-behaviour-heres-what-you-need-to-know-252079

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Mark Carney is sworn in, America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Lebo, Professor, Department of Political Science, Western University

    Prime Minister Mark Carney and his cabinet have been sworn in, ending Justin Trudeau’s time in office and paving the way for a spring election. Canadians are soon heading to the polls as they watch American democracy crumble.

    United States President Donald Trump recently argued “he who saves his country does not violate any Law” as he ignores Congress and the courts, governs by executive order and threatens international laws and treaties.



    Read more:
    Is Donald Trump on a constitutional collision course over NATO?

    Once stable democratic institutions are failing to hold an authoritarian president in check.

    What lessons are there to protect Canadian democracy as the federal election approaches?

    Elites lead the way

    First, it’s important to delve into how so many Americans have become tolerant of undemocratic actions and politics in the first place. It’s not that Republican voters first became more extreme and then chose a representative leader. Rather, public opinion and polarization are led by elites.

    Republican leaders moved dramatically to the right, and the primary system allowed the choice of an extremist. Republican voters then aligned their opinions with his. Trump’s disdain for democratic fundamentals spread quickly. Partisans defending their team slid away from democratic values.

    Canada’s more centrist ideological spectrum is not foolproof against this type of extremism. Public opinion can be moved when our leaders take us there.

    Decline can start slowly and then accelerate. America’s democratic backsliding in the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency follows the erosion of democratic norms over decades. Republican attacks on institutions, the opposition, the media and higher education corrosively undermined public faith in the truth, including election results.

    Trust in government is holding steady in Canada, however. That provides an important guardrail for Canadian democracy.

    The dangers of courting the far right

    There are also lessons for our political parties. To maximize their seats, Republicans accepted extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, but soon needed those types of politicians for key votes.

    The so-called Freedom Caucus, made up of MAGA adherents, forced the choice of a new, more extreme, leader of the House of Representatives. This provides a clear lesson that history has shown many times: it is dangerous for the party on the political right to accommodate the far right, which can quickly take control.

    Once established within the ruling party, extremists can hold their party hostage.

    At a recent meeting of the Munich Security Conference, Vice-President JD Vance pushed European parties to include far-right parties, and Elon Musk outright endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

    Austria recently avoided the inclusion of the far right in its new coalition, and now Germany is working to do the same. As Canada’s Conservatives look for every vote, courting far-right voters and candidates risks destabilizing the system.

    Can it happen in Canada?

    How safe is Canada’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy?

    The fusion of legislative and executive power in parliamentary systems like Canada’s seems prone to tyranny. America’s Constitutional framers thought so when they designed a system with separate legislative, executive and judicial branches that could check each other’s power.

    They clearly did not imagine party loyalty negating the safeguards that protect democracy from an authoritarian-minded president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and impeach, limits the executive’s power to spend and make appointments, gives the judiciary power to hold an executive accountable and contains the 25th amendment allowing cabinet to remove a president.

    But when one party controls the legislative and executive branches during a time of hyper-partisanship, these mechanisms may not constrain an authoritarian. Today, Republican loyalty has eroded these checks and balances and American courts are struggling to step up to their heightened role.

    Although counter-intuitive, parliamentary systems like Canada’s are usually less susceptible to authoritarianism than presidential ones because the cabinet or the House of Commons can turn against a lawless leader.

    Still, if popular, authoritarian leaders can still retain their party’s support — and then things can slide quickly. The rightward pull of extremists seen in the U.S. House would be more dangerous here since the Canadian House of Commons includes our executive.

    Guarding against xenophobia

    Lastly, Canada should be wary of xenophobic rhetoric.

    “America First” is not simply shopping advice. It began as an isolationist slogan during the First World War but was soon adopted by pro-fascists, American Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. These entities questioned who is really American and wanted not only isolationism, but racist policies, immigration restrictions and eugenics.

    Trump did not revive the phrase accidentally. It’s a call to America’s fringes. Alienating domestic groups is a sure sign of democratic decline.

    “Canada First” mimics that century-long dark theme in America. In combination with contempt for the opposition, it questions the right of other parties to legitimately hold power if used as a message by one party.

    Also, asserting that “Canada is broken” — as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre often does — mimics Trump’s talk of American carnage, language and imagery he uses to justify extraordinary presidential authority.

    Such language erodes citizens’ trust in democratic institutions and primes voters to support undemocratic practices in the name of patriotism. Canadian parties and politicians should exit that road.

    Ultimately, institutions alone do not protect a country from the rise of authoritarianism. Democracy can be fragile. As a federal election approaches in Canada, it’s important to know the warning signs of extremism and anti-democratic practices that are creeping into our politics.

    Matthew Lebo 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. As Mark Carney is sworn in, America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters – https://theconversation.com/as-mark-carney-is-sworn-in-americas-democratic-decline-has-critical-lessons-for-canadian-voters-251544

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: When humans use AI to earn patents, who is doing the inventing?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By W. Keith Robinson, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University

    Only humans can be awarded patents, but AIs can do a lot of the work to earn them. lineartestpilot/iStock via Getty Images

    The advent of generative artificial intelligence has sent shock waves across industries, from the technical to the creative. AI systems that can generate viable computer code, write news stories and spin up professional-looking graphics have inspired countless headlines asking whether they will take away jobs in technology, journalism and design, among many other fields.

    And these new ways of doing work and making things raise another question: In the era of AI, what does it mean to be an inventor?

    Among technologists who build digital tools or programs, it is increasingly common to use AI as part of design and development processes. But as deep learning models flex their technical muscles more and more, even highly skilled researchers who are using AI in their work have begun to express concerns about becoming obsolete.

    There is much debate about whether AI can augment human creativity, but emerging data suggests that the technology can boost research and development where creativity typically plays an important role. A recent study by MIT economics doctoral student Aidan Toner-Rodgers found that scientists using AI tools increased their patent filings by 39% and created 17% more prototypes than when they worked without such tools.

    While this study indicates that AI seemed to help humans be more productive, it also showed there was a downside: 82% of the surveyed researchers felt less satisfied with their jobs since implementing AI in their workflows. “I couldn’t help feeling that much of my education is now worthless,” one researcher said.

    This emerging dynamic leads to a related question: If a scientist uses AI in order to build something new, does the output still qualify as an invention? As a legal scholar who studies technology and intellectual property law, I see the growing power of AI shifting the legal landscape.

    Natural persons

    In 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to list the AI system DABUS, which purportedly designed a food container and a flashing emergency beacon, as an inventor on patent applications. Subsequent court rulings clarified that under current U.S. law, only humans can be listed as inventors, but they left open the question of whether inventions developed by scientists with the help of AI qualify for patent protection.

    The concept of inventorship and legal protections for inventions have deep roots in the U.S. The Constitution explicitly protects the “exclusive rights” of authors and inventors “to their respective writings and discoveries,” reflecting the framers’ strong conviction that the state should protect and encourage original ideas.

    The first U.S. patent, granted in 1790 and signed by George Washington.
    United States Patent and Trademark Office

    U.S. law today defines an inventor as a natural person who has conceived of a complete and operative invention that can be used without extensive research or experimentation. An inventor must do more than follow routine instructions – they must make an intellectual contribution in producing something novel.

    That contribution can be a key idea that sparks the invention or a crucial insight that turns the concept into a working product. If a person’s input is routine or just explains what’s already known, they are not an inventor.

    Role of AI

    To what extent can or should AI become part of the invention process? The release of AI applications such as ChatGPT in 2022 introduced the public to large language models and sparked renewed debate about whether and how AI should be used in the inventive process. That same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard a case that tested whether AI could be named as an inventor on a patent application.

    The court concluded that under U.S. law, inventors must be human beings. The ruling reaffirmed the idea that Congress intended to encourage human beings, not machines, to invent. This idea remains foundational to current patent policy.

    In light of the court’s decision, in 2024 the United States Patent and Trademark Office updated its guidance to clarify the role of AI in the inventive process. The guidance reaffirms that an inventor must be human. However, the Patent and Trademark Office explained that the policy did not preclude inventors from using AI tools to assist in the research and development of inventions. This approach acknowledges how the rapid development of AI technologies has allowed researchers to make exciting breakthroughs.

    Policymakers seem to understand that if the U.S. is to continue to lead the world in innovation, the mythology of a sole inventor toiling away in a garage and relying on pure intellect must evolve to account for the value of AI tools that research has proven make humans more productive.

    Nevertheless, since only human beings can be named as inventors on a patent, current policy does not quite answer the question of who or what should get credit for doing the work. Despite a growing trend where researchers are expected to disclose whether they’ve used AI tools, for example in academic papers, the U.S. patent system makes no such demand.

    Regardless of AI’s role in the research and development process, a U.S. patent will list only the names of human inventors so long as those humans made a significant contribution to the invention. As a result, current policy is not concerned with how to recognize the contributions of AI. AI is considered a tool like a microscope or a Bunsen burner.

    Personal ingenuity in the age of AI

    Given this shifting legal landscape, I see that U.S. innovation policy is at a crossroads. The Patent and Trademark Office’s guidance reaffirming human inventorship and simultaneously embracing AI as an innovation tool is only a year old. It is unclear how the Trump administration’s forthcoming action plan to “enhance America’s global AI dominance” will affect this guidance.

    Some observers expect the rate of scientific discovery to increase dramatically with the assistance of AI tools. But if the majority of those same productive researchers enjoy their jobs less, is the act of inventing being encouraged as the framers envisioned?

    Current U.S. policy attempts to strike a balance and recognize the concept of personal ingenuity, stemming from the principle that for an invention to be patented in the U.S., a human must have led the way. Yet the guidance also implicitly acknowledges that AI can lend a helping hand in modern research and development. Whether and how policymakers maintain this balance – and how leaders in industry and science respond – will help shape the next chapter of American innovation.

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

    – ref. When humans use AI to earn patents, who is doing the inventing? – https://theconversation.com/when-humans-use-ai-to-earn-patents-who-is-doing-the-inventing-248216

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The psychology behind anti-trans legislation: How cognitive biases shape thoughts and policy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Julia Standefer, Ph.D. Student in Psychology, Iowa State University

    Protesters fill the Iowa state Capitol to denounce a bill that will strip the state civil rights code of protections based on gender identity. AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

    A state law signed Feb. 28, 2025, removes gender identity as a protected status from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, leaving transgender people vulnerable to discrimination. The rights of transgender people – those who present gender characteristics that differ from what has historically been expected of someone based on their biological sex traits – are under political attack across the United States. There are now hundreds of anti-trans bills at various points in the legislative process.

    But why?

    Reasons given usually center on protecting children, protecting cisgender women’s rights in bathrooms and sports competitions, and on removing funding for gender-affirming care. Some efforts appear to stem from fear-driven motives that are not supported by evidence.

    Bias against trans people may not always feel like bias. For someone who believes it to be true, saying there can only be biological men who identify as men and biological women who identify as women may feel like a statement of fact. But research shows that gender is a spectrum, separate from biological sex, which is also more complex than the common male-female binary.

    We are social psychologists who study and teach about the basic social, cognitive and emotion-based processes people use to make sense of themselves and the world. Research reveals psychological processes that bias people in ways they usually aren’t aware of. These common human tendencies can influence what we think about a particular group, influence how we act toward them, and prompt legislators to pass biased laws.

    Root of negative views of transgender people

    Social psychology theory and research point to several possible sources of negative views of transgender people.

    Part of forming your own identity is defining yourself by the traits that make you unique. To do this, you categorize others as belonging to your group – based on characteristics that matter to you, such as race, age, culture or gender – or not. Psychologists call these categories in-groups and out-groups.

    There is a natural human tendency to have inherent negative feelings toward people who aren’t part of your in-group. The bias you might feel against fans of a rival sports team is an example. This tendency may be rooted deep in evolutionary history, when favoring your own safe group over unknown outsiders would have been a survival advantage.

    A trans person’s status as transgender may be the most salient thing about them to an observer, overshadowing other characteristics such as their height, race, profession, parental status and so on. As a small minority, transgender people are an out-group from the mainstream – making it likely out-group bias will be directed their way.

    Anti-trans feeling may also result from fear that transgender people pose threats to one’s personal or group identity. Gender is part of everyone’s identity. If someone perceives their own gender to be determined by their biological sex, they may perceive other people who violate that “rule” as a threat to their own gender identity. Part of identity formation is not just out-group derogation but in-group favoritism. A cisgender person may engage in “in-group boundary protection” by making sure the parameters of “gender” are well defined and match their own beliefs.

    Once you hold negative feelings about someone in an out-group, there are other social psychological processes that may solidify and amplify them in your mind.

    The illusion of a causal connection

    People tend to form illusory correlations between objects, people, occurrences or behaviors, particularly when those things are infrequently encountered. Two distinctive things happening at the same time makes people believe that one is causing the other.

    Some superstitions result from this phenomenon. For example, you might attribute an unusual success such as winning money to wearing a particular shirt, which you now think of as your lucky shirt.

    If a person only ever hears about negative events when they see or hear about a transgender person, an immigrant or a member of some other minority group, then an illusory correlation can form between the negative events and the minority group. That connection is the starting point for prejudice: automatic, negative feelings toward a group of people without justification.

    Of course, it is possible that individuals from the group in question have committed some offense. But to take one individual’s bad deed and attribute it to an entire group of people isn’t justified. This kind of extrapolation is the natural human tendency of stereotyping, which can bias people’s actions.

    ‘That’s exactly what I thought’

    Human minds are biased to confirm the beliefs they already hold, including stereotypes about trans people. A few interconnected processes are at play in what psychologists call confirmation bias.

    First, there’s a natural tendency to seek out information that fits with what you already believe. If you think a shirt is lucky, then you’re more likely to look for positive things that happen when you wear it than you are to look for negative events that would seem to disconfirm its luckiness.

    If you think transgender people are dangerous, you are more likely to conduct an internet search for “transgender people who are dangerous” than “transgender people are victims of crime.”

    There’s a second, more passive process in play as well. Rather than actively seeking out confirming information, people also simply pay attention to information that confirms what they thought in the first place and ignore contradictory information. This can happen without you even realizing.

    People also tend to interpret ambiguous events in line with their beliefs – “I must be having a good day, despite some setbacks, because I’m wearing my lucky shirt.” That confirmation bias could explain someone with anti-trans attitudes thinking “that transgender person holding hands with a child must be a pedophile” instead of “that transgender mother is showing love and care for her kid.”

    Finally, people tend to remember things that confirm their beliefs better than things that challenge them.

    Confirmation bias can strengthen an illusory correlation, making it even more likely to influence subsequent actions – whether compulsively wearing a lucky shirt to an anxiety-inducing appointment or not hiring someone because of discriminatory thoughts about the group they belong to.

    Moving past biases

    Awareness of biases is the first step in avoiding them. Setting bias aside allows people to make fair decisions, based on accurate information, and in line with their values.

    However, this is not an easy task in the face of another social psychological process called group polarization. This phenomenon occurs when individuals’ beliefs become more extreme as they talk and listen only to people who hold the same beliefs they do. Think of the social media bubbles that result from interacting only with people who share your perspective.

    Efforts to stifle or prohibit educators’ and librarians’ ability to teach and discuss gender and sexuality topics, openly and fairly, add another challenge. Education through access to impartial, evidence-based information can be one way to help neutralize inherent bias.

    Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, who is transgender, in discussion with a colleague.
    AP Photo/Tommy Martino

    As a final, hopeful point, social psychological research has identified one strategy for overcoming intergroup conflict: forming close contacts with individuals from the “other” group. Having a friend, loved one or trusted and valued colleague who belongs to the out-group can help you recognize their humanity and overcome the biases you hold against that out-group as a whole.

    A relevant and recent example of this scenario came when two transgender state representatives convinced their fellow lawmakers to vote against two extreme anti-trans bills in Montana by making the issue personal.

    All of these decision-making biases influence everyone, not just the lawmakers currently in power. And they can be quite complex, with particular in-group and out-group memberships being hard to define – for instance, factions within religious groups who disagree on particular political issues.

    But understanding and overcoming the biases everyone falls prey to means that optimal decisions can be made for everyone’s well-being and economic vitality. After all, psychology research has repeatedly demonstrated that diversity is good for the bottom line while it simultaneously promotes an equitable and inclusive society. Even from a solely financial perspective, discrimination is bad for all Americans.

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

    – ref. The psychology behind anti-trans legislation: How cognitive biases shape thoughts and policy – https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-behind-anti-trans-legislation-how-cognitive-biases-shape-thoughts-and-policy-251691

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Remarks by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte Before Bilateral Meeting

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Oval Office

    12:33 P.M. EDT

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Hello, everybody.  It’s great to be with a friend of mine, who was prime minister of the Netherlands, so I got to know him very well.  We had a great relationship always.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Absolutely.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Mark Rutte.  Now he’s secretary general of NATO and doing a fantastic job.  Everybody — every report I’ve gotten is what a great job he did.  And I’m not at all surprised when I hear it.  We had to support him, and we supported him as soon as I heard the name.  

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But he was a fantastic prime minister, and he’s doing a fantastic job. An even tougher job.  Which is tougher: being the prime minister of Netherlands or?

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  This job is quite tough.  Yeah.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I would think this is a little tougher.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  But — but Dutch politics is also brutal.  So — (laughter).

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  But this is pretty tough. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But you’re doing good. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re going to be discussing a lot of things.  Obviously, we’ll be discussing what’s happening with respect to Ukraine and Russia. 

    At this moment, we have people talking in Russia.  We have representatives over there — Steve Witkoff and others.  And they’re in very serious discussions.  As you know, Ukraine has agreed, subject to this — what’s happening today — to a complete ceasefire, and we hope Russia will do the same. 

    Thousands of people are being killed — young people, usually, mostly young people.  We were just talking about it.  Thousands of young people are being killed a week, and we want to see that stop.  And they’re not Americans, and they’re not from the Netherlands for the most part.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  No.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They’re not from — they’re from Russia and they’re from Ukraine, but they’re people.  And I think everybody feels the same way.  We want it to stop.

    It’s also a tremendous cost to the United States and to other countries.  And it’s something that would have never happened if I were president, and it makes me very angry to see that it did happen.  But it happened, and we have to stop it.  

    And Mark has done some really good work over the last week.  We’ve been working together, and he’s done some really good work.  So, I’m very happy about that. 

    We’ll also be talking about trade and various other things, and I think we’ll have a very, very strong day.  We’re going to have lunch afterwards.  That’ll go.  And then we’ll see you all later. 

    But, Mark, would you like to say something?

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  First of all, thank you so much, Mr. President, dear Donald, again for hosting me and — but also for taking time in Florida a couple of weeks after you —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — you were reelected. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And, of course, our phone call a couple of weeks ago.  And I must say, Trump 45 — you basically — you originated the fact that in Europe we are now spending, when you take it to aggregate, $700 billion more on defense —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — than when you came in office in 2016 — in 2017.

    But that was Trump 45.  But when look at Trump 47 —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Going to be hard to top.  (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — what happened the last couple of weeks is really staggering.  The Europeans committing to a package of $800 billion defense spending.  The Germans now —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — potentially up to half a trillion extra in defense spending.  And then, of course, you have Keir Starmer here, the British prime minister, and others all committing to much higher defense spending.  

    They’re not there.  We need to do more.  But I really want to work together with you in a run-up to The Hague summit to make sure that we will have a NATO which is really reinvigorated under your leadership.  And we are getting there.  

    We also discussed defense production, because we need to produce more weaponry.  We are not doing enough — not in the U.S., not in Europe.  And we are lagging behind when you compare to the Russians and the Chinese.  And you have a huge defense industrial base, Europeans buying mo- — four times more here than the other — the other way around, which is good, because you have a strong defense industry. 

    But we need to do more there to make sure that we ramp up production and kill the red tape.  So, I would love to work with you on that. 

    And finally, Ukraine — you broke the deadlock.  As you said, all the killing, the young people dying, cities getting destroyed.  The fact that you did that, that you started the dialogue with the Russians and the successful talks in Saudi Arabia now with the Ukrainians — I really want to commend you for this.

    So, well, The Hague is my hometown.  I’d love to host you there in the summer and work together to make sure that —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’ll do that.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — that will be a splash, a real success, projecting American power on the world stage. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  What Mark is saying is: When I first went to NATO, my first meeting, I noticed that very few people were paying.  And if they were, they weren’t paying their fair share.  There were only seven countries that were paying what they were supposed to be paying, which was —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s even worse, there were three.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That’s even worse.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It could be even worse. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But there were just very few countries that were paying.  And even the paying, it was at 2 percent, which is too low.  It should be higher.  It should be quite a bit higher.

    But you had Poland and I remember Poland was actually paying a little bit more than they were supposed to, which I was very impressed with.  And they’ve been actually terrific and some of the others.  But most of them weren’t paying or they were paying very little.  

    And I didn’t think it was appropriate to bring it up there, but I said, “It’s going to be brought up at my next meeting.”  And my next meeting — you know, the first meeting, you want to give them a little break.  The second meeting, it began.

    And I was able to raise —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  You did.  (Laughs.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — hundreds of billions of dollars.  I just said, “We’re not going to be involved with you if you’re not going to pay.”  And the money started pouring in.  And NATO became much stronger because of my actions and working along with a lot of people, including Mark.

    But they would not pay for other presidents.  I don’t think other presidents even knew that they weren’t paid.  I asked, first question, “Has everybody paid up?”  And literally, I mean, they showed — they told me seven.  You could be right.  It could be three.  But — that makes it even worse — but they just weren’t paying. 

    And I said, “No, I won’t protect if you’re not paying.  If you’re delinquent or if the money isn’t paid, why would we do that?”

    And as soon as I said that, got a little hit from the press, because they said, “Oh, gee, that’s not very nice.”  But if you said the other, nobody would have paid.  And the money started coming in by the billions.  

    And, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into NATO, and NATO became strong.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And you remember that.  And your predecessor, who I thought was a very good man actually.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Absolutely.  Jens Stoltenberg.  He sends his best greetings.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  He was terrific.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Stoltenberg, secretary general.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Great man.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And he made the statement that when Trump came in, the money started coming in like we never saw before.  Hundreds of billions — it was actually probably close to $600 billion came in.  And NATO became strong from that standpoint.

    And now, we have to use it wisely.  And we have to get this war over with.  And you’ll be back to a normal — much more normal life. 

    And maybe we’re close.  We’re getting words that things are going okay in Russia, and it doesn’t mean anything until we hear what the final outcome is. 

    But they have very serious discussions going on right now with President Putin and others.  And hopefully, they all want to end this nightmare.  It’s a nightmare.  It’s a horrible thing, when you look.  I get pictures every week.  They give me the pictures of the battlefield, which I almost don’t want to see.  It’s so horrible to see.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s so terrible.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Young people laying — arms and legs and heads laying all over the field.  It’s the most terrible thing that you’ll ever see. 

    And it’s got to stop.  These are young people with mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and friends, and it’s got to stop. 

    So, we hopefully are going to be in a good position sometime today to have a good idea.  We’ll have — we know where we are with Ukraine, and we are getting good signals outside of Russia as to where we are with Russia, and hopefully they’ll do the right thing.  

    It’s a really — humanity — we’re talking about humanity.  We’re not talking about the money.  But then you add the money to it, and, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars is being spent and, really, wasted so unnecessarily.  It should have never happened.  

    So, it’s an honor to have you here.  They picked a great gentleman.  I’ll tell you, that was — I was so happy to hear, because you had somebody — Stoltenberg was really good.  And you have somebody that’s going to do an incredible job.  And I was so much in favor of you, you have no idea. 

    They had another person that I did not like.  (Laughter.)  I was not happy.  And I think I kept him from — you know what I’m talking about.  I said, “This is the right man to do it.”  And he really did.  He was a great prime minister of the Netherlands.  He did a great job.  And that’s what he’s doing right now. 

    So, thank you, everybody, for being here.  And very great honor to have you.  And we even have some of our great energy people here today, right?  We have the governor, and we have Chris.  You know Chris.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Absolutely.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  He’s supposed to be the most talented man in the world of energy, according to the governor.  (Laughter.)  So, I don’t know if he’s right.

    And we have — General, you’ve been fantastic.  Thank you very much. 

    And we have a lot of good people that won’t be so much involved with this, but they wanted to see what was happening.  It’s become a little bit of a show — (laughter) — but they wanted to see what was happening.  And I think a lot of good things are happening.  

    So, with that, if anybody would have a question.

    (Cross-talk.) 

    Q    Mr. President, o- — on Russia. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Please, go ahead.

    Q    Vlad- —

         Q    Sorry.  Sorry, Mary.  Steve Witkoff’s trip to Moscow, you spoke about it.  What sort of agreement do you hope he comes away from there with?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we’d like to see a ceasefire from Russia.  And we have, you know, not been working in the dark.  We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement.  

    There’s a power plant involved — you know, a very big power plant involved.  Who’s going to get the power plant and who’s going to get this and that.  And so, you know, it’s not an easy process.

    But phase one is the ceasefire.  A lot of the individual subjects have been discussed, though.  You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land, because you don’t want to waste time with the ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything.  So, we’re saying, “Look, this is what you can get.  This is what you can’t get.” 

    They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is.  They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness. 

    So, a lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.  Now we’re going to see whether or not Russia is there, and if they’re not, it’ll be a very disappointing moment for the world. 

    Yeah. 

    Q    And Vladimir Putin just said he is open to a ceasefire, but he does still have some concerns.  He suggested that you two should speak directly.  Do you have plans to speak to him soon?  If so, when?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I would.  Yeah, sure.

    Q    And are you confident you can get this across the finish line?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Sure.  He did say that today.  It was a very promising statement, because other people are saying different things, and you don’t know if they have anything to really — if they have any meaning, or I don’t know.  I think some of them were making statements.  I don’t think they have anything to do with it.

    No, he put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete.  And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him, but we have to get it over with fast.  You know, every day people are being killed.  It’s not like — as we sit here, two people will be killed.  Think of it.  Two people are going to be killed during this little period of time. 

         Thousands of people a week are dying, so we really don’t have very much time.  We have to make this fast.  It shouldn’t be very complicated.

    (Cross-talk.) 

    Yes.

    Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  A representative of Canada, the finance minister, are in town and will meet members of your administration during the day. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Sure.  Yeah.

    Q    Any chances that you will ban on the tariffs on aluminum and — and the — the ones that are planned for April 2nd?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No.

    Q    You are not going to change your mind? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, I’m not.  Look, we’ve been ripped off for years, and we’re not going to be ripped off anymore.  No, I’m not going to bend at all on aluminum or steel or cars.  We’re not going to bend.  We’ve been ripped off as a country for many, many years.  We’ve been subjected to costs that we shouldn’t be subjected to. 

    In the case of Canada, we’re spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada.  I love Canada.  I love the people of Canada. I have many friends in Canada.  “The Great One,” Wayne Gretzky, the great.  Hey, how good is Wayne Gretzky?  He’s the Great One.  

    But we have — I know many people from Canada that are good friends of mine.  But, you know, the United States can’t subsidize a country for $200 billion a year.  We don’t need their cars.  We don’t need their energy.  We don’t need their lumber.  We don’t need anything that they give. 

    We do it because we want to be helpful, but it comes a point when you just can’t do that.  You have to run your own country.  And to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state.  We don’t need anything they have.  As a state, it would be one of the great states anywhere.  

    This would be the most incredible country visually.  If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it — between Canada and the U.S.  Just a straight artificial line.  Somebody did it a long time ago — many, many decades ago — and makes no sense.  

    It’s so perfect as a great and cherished state, keeping “O Canada,” the national anthem.  I love it.  I think it’s great.  Keep it, but it’ll be for the state.  One of our greatest states.  Maybe our greatest state.  

    But why should we subsidize another country for $200 billion?  It costs us $200 billion a year.  And again, we don’t need their lumber.  We don’t need their energy.  We have more than they do.  We don’t need anything.  We don’t need their cars.  I’d much rather make the cars here.  

    And there’s not a thing that we need.  Now, there’ll be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long.  But they need us.  We really don’t need them.  And we have to do this.  I’m sorry, we have to do this.  

    Yes. 

    Q    Mr. President — 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah. 

    Q    — you have made it very clear that NATO needs to step up, although great progress —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — has been made in your first mandate.  How do you envision this new transatlantic —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Are you talking about NATO stepping up?

    Q    Yes.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, NATO is stepping up through this man. This man is a man that only knows how to step up.  And we have the same goal in mind: We want the war ended.  And he’s doing his job.  He only knows how to do a good job.  That’s one thing.  That’s why I fought for him to get that job —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you so much.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — because they had some other candidates that I’ll tell you would not have done a very good job.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  I need this part of the — of the movie for my family.  (Laughter.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.  That’s right.  We’ll get you a clip. 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Exactly.  (Laughs.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re going to get him a clip of that — of that little last essay.  But the rest of the statements he doesn’t care about.

    Q    Sir, how does this new transatlantic cooperation — how do you envision it?  What is it going to look like?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we have — that’s one thing.  I mean, you know, we’re the other side of the ocean, and they’re right there.  And yet, we’re in for $350 billion because of Biden, and they’re in for $100 billion.  So, it’s a big difference, and it’s unfair.  

    And I said, “You have to equalize.”  They should equalize.  They should have — it should have never happened, where Biden just gave his money away. 

    Now, as you know, we have an agreement with Ukraine on the rare earths and other things, and that’ll get us

    something back — a lot back.  It’ll get us our money back.  We’re not doing it for that, though.  We’re doing — I’m just doing this to get the war stopped.  I’m doing it, really, to save lives.

    But, at the same time, we were treated very unfairly, as we always are by every country.  And we’re in for very substantially more than the European nations are in for, and that shouldn’t be.

    You know, they’re much more affected by it than we are, because we do have an ocean in between. 

    But I don’t know.  I think good things are going to happen.  I really do.  I think good things are going to happen. 

    I do say — we were talking before, and Mark was very nice.  He said, “If you wouldn’t get involved, there would be” — you’d just be going on.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  This thing would have gone on for a long time.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Breaking a deadlock.  It was crucial.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, we broke a deadlock. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We did break a deadlock.  I hope it’s meaningful. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yes, did you have one?

    Q    Mr. President — 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, please.

    Q    Yes, sir.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Amanda Head with Just the News.  On the southern border, you’ve got DHS and ICE, who are reporting that there was a little bit of fudging of numbers during the Biden administration —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — on both the catch and the release side with respect to reporting the number of illegals coming into the country who were released.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They cheated on the numbers.  They were — the numbers were — I love that question.

    Q    Right.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Who are you with?

    Q    Just the News.  Amanda Head.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Very nice.  That’s good.  That’s good.

    Q    Do you know how many of those are criminal illegal aliens? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Many of them.

    Q    And Biden is out of office —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:   Yeah.

    Q    — Alejandro Mayorkas.  Who gets held accountable?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, Biden fudged the numbers.  The numbers were totally fake, and he gave fake numbers.  I knew they were fake.  Everybody knew they were fake, but now it came out.  And terrible what — what they did.  That administration was a horror show for this country.

    Q    Can you hold anyone accountable?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I don’t know.  They gave phony numbers, and phony numbers are a very bad thing to give.  But I’m not sure about that.  I don’t know how it would play.  We want to get it straightened out.  

    We have — we’re after many, many bad people that were let into our country.  And Kristi Noem and my friend Homan — how good is Tom Homan doing, right?  And they’re after them.  And they — I mean, you see: They’re taking them out in record numbers.  Gang members, gang leaders, drug dealers. 

    This is a problem the Netherlands does not have.  The Netherlands never had this problem.  If you’d like to take —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  We have a few drug- — drug dealers, I’m afraid.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I could deliver some people.  I could deliver some nice people to the Netherlands if you’d like.  (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  I’m not sure.  (Laughs.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, what he did to this country, letting 21 million people flow through an open border — many of those people were hard criminals from prisons and jails, from mental institutions, and I always say “insane asylums,” because they were seriously deranged.  And they’re here from not South America, from all over the world.  From South America, but from all over the world.  And it’s so sad. 

    You’d say, “Why would anybody do this?  Why?”

    Yeah, go ahead.

    Q    And — and one more.  There’s some new internal Democrat polling that doesn’t look great for Democrats, but it also has 54 percent unfavorability for Republicans in swing states and battlegrounds for the midterms.  Do you consider those voters cap- — capturable for — for Republicans?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, well, we did — you know, I won every swing state, as you know, by a lot, and I won the popular vote by a lot, and we won the counties.  If you look at the counties and district plan, we had 2,725, and they had 501.  That’s a real — that’s why the map is all red.  So, we had a great thing.

    Yeah, I think winning from the Democrats — I saw — if you looked the other night, I made a speech, and I introduced two young ladies who were killed.  Two killed.  Viciously, violently killed.  Young.  Unbelievable.  Both outstanding people.  They were killed by illegal aliens.  And the Democrats wouldn’t get up and applaud.  The mothers were, I mean, inconsolable.  They were crying, and everybody was crying.  The Democrats sat there with stone faces.  They didn’t clap, they didn’t stand, they didn’t do anything.  

    We had a young man with very serious cancer, wanted to — his dream is to be with the police department someday, and he was introduced. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That was very touching.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They didn’t even clap.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah, I saw it.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I mean, they were disgusting.  Frankly, they were disgusting.  There’s something wrong with them.  They’re deranged.  They’re deranged.  Like Jack Smith, they’re deranged people. 

    And I never saw anything like it.  I’m standing up, and I introduce the mother and the parents of these two young girls that were just recently, essentially, killed.  Violently killed.  And the Democrats are like this.  It’s so sad.  

    And I saw this morning where — one of them is pretty well-known — one is arguing, fighting like crazy over men being able to play in women’s sports.  I said, “Yeah, I thought that was tried.”  I thought that was about a 95 — I think it’s a 95 percent issue.  

    But, in a way, I want them to keep doing it, because I don’t think they can win a race.  I mean — and I tell the Republicans, I said, “Don’t bring that subject up, because there’s no election right now.  But about a week before the election, bring it up, because you can’t lose.”  

    And everything is “transgender this, transgender that.”  You know, they have bad politics. 

    But one thing: They stick together.  You know?

    I wish — and the Republicans stick together, mostly, but we have a couple that are grandstanders.  You know, you always have grandstanders in life.

    But the Democrats, they don’t seem — they have grandstanders, but when it comes to a vote, they do stick together, right?

    VICE PRESIDENT VANCE:  They get in line.  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So.

    Q    It seems like they’ll stick together on the shutdown.  Will that hurt Democrats going into midterms?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, if they do a shutdown and, ultimately, that might lead to very, very high taxes, because we’re talking about a shutdown.  We’re talking about getting to work immediately on the greatest tax bill ever passed.  That was the one we did.  It’s a renewal, and it’s an addition to it.  And we’re going to cut people’s taxes. 

    And if we don’t open, the Democrats are stopping all of these good things that we’re providing.  We’re providing the greatest package of benefits that this country has ever provided. 

    The biggest part of that’s going to be tax cuts for the middle class and for businesses, small businesses, employers — people that hire people and jobs. 

    And if it’s shut down, it’s only going to be — if there’s a shutdown, it’s only because of the Democrats, and they would really be taking away a lot from our country and from the people of our country.

    Q    Mr. President, on — on tariffs.  You made clear you’re not backing down from this, but many American small-business owners say they are concerned that these tariffs are going to hurt them.  What’s your message to them?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They’re going to be so much richer than they are right now.

    And we have many — yesterday, General Motors was in.  They want to invest $60 billion.  The people from Facebook were in yesterday.  They’re going to invest $60 billion by the end of the year.  Other people are talking about numbers.  

    Apple, as you know, a few days ago, announced $500 billion investment.  They’re going to build their plants in the United States, which, as you know, almost all of their plants are in China.  Now they’re building in the United States.

    Look, the reason is two things.  Number one, the election. November 5th.  And the other thing is tariffs.  I think, probably, in that order. 

    But Tim Cook came in and he announced 500 — think of it, $500 billion, not million.  Five hundred million is a lot, when you think about it, right?  But —

    VICE PRESIDENT VANCE:  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I would have been happy with $500 million.  But it’s $500 billion investment by Apple in the United States, and that’s because of the election result and it’s because of the tariffs and the tax incentives too.  You know, tariffs and tax incentives.  And I’ve never seen anything like it. 

    We have plants going up now in Indiana.  We have plants going up in Michigan.  A lot of plants going to be planned from — I’m trying to steer them to Michigan, because Michigan got so badly beaten by, you know, what happened with Europe.

    You know, if you look at Europe. Take a look at the EU.  We’re not allowed to sell cars there.  It’s prohibitive because of their policies, and also their nonmonetary tariffs.  They put obstacles in your way that you can do nothing about.  

    But if you take a look at what happens — so, we sell no cars to Europe — I mean, virtually no cars — and they sell millions of cars to us.  They don’t take our agriculture.  We take their agriculture. It’s like a one-way street with them.

    The European Union is very, very nasty. 

    They sue our companies.  Apple was forced to pay $16 billion on a case that — very much like my cases that I won.  They shouldn’t have been even cases.  But we felt they had no case, and they ended up having an extremely favorable judge and decision.  

    But they’re suing Google, they’re suing Facebook, they’re suing all of these companies, and they’re taking billions of dollars out of American companies, many more than the ones I just mentioned.  And I guess they’re using it to run Europe or something.  I don’t know what they’re using it for. 

    But they treat us very badly.  China obviously treats this very badly.  Almost everybody does.  And I blame past presidents, to be honest. 

    Because when I was president, I — we received, so far, about $700 billion from China, over the years, on the tariffs that I put in.  No other president got 10 cents from China.  And that was only beginning.  Except for COVID, it would have — I would have been able to finish the process.  But we had to fight the COVID thing, and we did really well with it.  But we had to fight.

    And then we had actually — as you remember, Mark, we actually handed over the stock market.  It was higher than just previous to COVID coming in, which was sort of a miracle, frankly.  We did a good job.

    But the tariffs are very important.  And I think the psychology — there’s great spirit.  When Mark came in, he said, “Congratulations.  There’s a whole new spirit.  There’s a whole new light over this country, and really over the world” —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — because you have somebody that — a whole group of people, really, because I talk about this whole group, that we know what we’re doing.  And a lot of great things are happening.

    But I’ve never seen investment like this.  Trillions of dollars is being invested in the United States now that would have never — our country could have failed.  Another four years of this, what happened in the last four years, our country would have been a crime-ridden mess.  

    And I don’t know if you noticed — a little thing, they call it, but it’s not a little thing if you don’t have — if you like eggs and you don’t have a lot of money — eggs have gone down 25 percent in the last couple of weeks.  We inherited that problem: eggs.  

    Groceries have gone down a little bit.  Energy has gone down. 

    Do you want to speak to that for a second, Governor?  Would you just say a couple of words, you and Chris, about energy, what’s happened?

    SECRETARY BURGUM:  Well, happy to, but I think that — Chris and I just came from CERAWeek, which is the largest conference in the world.  So, global leaders, people from the EU, officials from all the energy-producing countries all there.  And all the global nationals, all the U.S.  The — the spirit of that group is through the roof, because now they realize that in the United States, that President Trump’s policies are pro — pro developing more energy, as opposed to we’re trying to shut down energy.  

    And that pro-growth, pro-business, pro- — pro-energy approach is giving people the optimism.  So, then the markets are reacting to that, and energy prices on the futures market are going to go down because people know we’re — we’re not going to be killing off the energy we need for prosperity in all of our countries, but also for peace, because people have used energy to fuel these wars that President Trump is working so hard to end.  And — and we — we know that energy — high energy prices were driving the inflation that he talked about. 

    So, it accomplishes two goals for us — which is prosperity for the world, peace for the world — when we have smart energy policies.  And — and President Trump has brought common sense back to how we think about energy.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And it’s brought down now $65 a barrel,  I saw this morning.  That’s phenomenal news, and that’s going to bring — that’s what brought it up.  The energy went — they took our beautiful energy policies and they just messed them up.  And then they went immediately back to them, because — but by that time, they lost it.  They lost that bronco, as the expression goes.

    Chris, do you have something to say?

    SECRETARY WRIGHT:  I think Doug said it well, but you just can’t overstate how important the return of common sense, the return of knowledge about energy and pro-American consumers, pro investment in our country.  I think, globally, that was welcomed.  It means capital flows.  It means more sobriety and lower energy prices, more economic opportunity for Americans. 

    So, yeah, it was elated atmosphere at a global energy conference. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we’re working on one project, and it should be very easy.  It’s a pipeline going through a small section of New York.  New York has held it up for years, actually.  For years they’ve wanted to do it. For years and years.  And it will reduce — 

    The most expensive energy, almost, in the world is in New England, because they have no way of getting it there because it’s been held up by New York.  And the whole of New England and Connecticut and New York — the energy prices are through the roof.  And this one pipeline will save per family, $2,500 just on heating and another $2,500 on everything else.  So, the energy — by just a simple pipeline going through an area that wants it — an area that’s not a rich area; it’s actually a very poor area — would create jobs and everything else.

    And it’s going to be way underground.  Nobody’s going to see it.  Once they fill it up, nobody’s going to see it.  Nobody’s going to know it’s there. 

    And families in New York and Connecticut and New England are going to save $5,000 a family.  Think of that.  Because, right now, they have the highest energy prices maybe in the world, they say.  New England is a disaster.  

    So, we’re working on that.  In fact, the governor is coming in — governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, who’s a very nice woman.  She’s coming in tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock to meet me on that and other things — not only that, but other things.

    So, I hope we don’t have to use the extraordinary powers of the federal government to get it done, but if we have to, we will.  But I don’t think we’ll have to. 

    I can tell you, Connecticut wants it and all of New England wants it.  And who wouldn’t want it?  And it’s also jobs on top of everything else.  So, that’s going to be very exciting.  So, we’re meeting with the governor tomorrow morning. 

    (Cross-talk.)

    Yeah. 

    Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Greenland.  What is your vision for the potential annexation of Greenland and getting them, potentially, to —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — to statehood?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think it’ll happen.  And I’m just thinking — I didn’t give it much thought before, but I’m sitting with a man that could be very instrumental.  You know, Mark, we need that for international security — not just security, international.  We have a lot of our favorite players, you know, cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful.  And we’ll be talking to you.

    And it’s a very appropriate — really, a very appropriate question. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s an —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — an issue in the high north, so the Arctic.  So, what you did —

    So, when it comes to Greenland, yes or no, joining the U.S., I would leave that outside, for me, this discussion, because I don’t want to drag NATO in that. 

    But when it comes to the high north in the Arctic, you are totally right.  The Chinese and — are using these routes.  We know that the Russians already arming.  We know we have a lack of icebreakers.  So, the fact that the seven — outside of Russia, there are seven Arctic countries — working together on this, under U.S. leadership — it’s very important to make sure that that region, that that a part of the world stays safe.  And — and we know things are changing there, and we have to be there.

    Q    Well, they just had an election there the other day.  I mean, do you see a referendum, a plebiscite where the people of Greenland would be in a position to decide if they want to become part of the United States? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, it was a good election for us, as you know.  It was not a referendum.  It wouldn’t be called that.  It was an individual election.  But the person that did the best is a very good person, as far as we’re concerned.  And so, we’ll be talking about it.  And it’s very important. 

    Mark mentioned the word “icebreaker.”  So, we’re in the process of ordering 48 icebreakers, and Canada wants to know if they could use them.  I said, “Well, you know, you got to pay for them.”  Think of it.  Canada.  We pay for their military.  You know, Canada pays very little for their military, because they think we’re going to protect them, but — even with the icebreakers. 

    So, we’re going to order 48, and Canada wants to be part of the deal.  I say, “You got to get your own icebreakers.  I mean, if you’re a state, you can be part of the deal, but if you’re a separate country, you’ve got to get your own icebreakers.”  

    Russia, as you know, has about 40 of them, and we have 1 big icebreaker.  But that whole area is becoming very important and for a lot of reasons.  The routes are, you know, very direct to Asia, to Russia, and you have ships all over the place.  And we have to have protection.  So, we’re going to have to make a deal on that.

    And Denmark is not able to do that.  You know, Denmark is very far away and really has nothing to do. 

    What happens?  A boat landed there 200 years ago or something, and they say they have rights to it.  I don’t know if that’s true.  I’m not — I don’t think it is, actually.

    But we’ve been dealing with Denmark.  We’ve been dealing with Greenland.  And we have to do it.  We really need it for national security.  I think that’s why NATO might have to get involved in a way, because we really need Greenland for national security.  It’s very important.  

    You know, we have a couple of bases on Greenland already, and we have quite a few soldiers that — maybe you’ll see more and more soldiers go there.  I don’t know.

    What do you think about that, Pete? Don’t answer that, Pete.  (Laughter.)  Don’t answer that question.  

    But we have bases, and we have quite a few soldiers on Greenland already. 

    Q    Mr. President, some people question your commitment to NATO.  Will everything — anything change?

    Your com- — your commitment to NATO, will anything change?  Same amount of money?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think they made —

    Q    Same number of troops?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — a great step by putting Mark in charge.  I think, to me, that’s a great step, because he and I have seen eye to eye on everything for a long time.  We’ve been doing this a long time now.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Nine years now.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And so, that’s a great step. 

    You have to keep NATO strong.  You have to keep it relevant. 

    But the biggest thing we have to worry about right now is what’s going on right now.  I think the rest is going to take care of itself. 

    I don’t see this having — this was a fluke.  This was something that if we had a competent president, it would not have happened.  The man was grossly incompetent.  All you have to do is look in — take a look at — he signs by autopen.

    Who was signing all this stuff by autopen?  Who would think you signed important documents by autopen?  You know, these are major documents you’re signing.  You’re proud to sign them.  You have your signature on something — in 300 years, they say, “Oh, look.”  Can you imagine?  Everything was signed by autopen — almost everything.  Nobody has ever heard of such a thing. 

    Q    Do you —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So —

    Q    Sorry. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Should have never happened. 

    Q    You’re speaking tomorrow at the Justice Department about law and order.  Could you tell us a little bit about that? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, we’re going to be with the Justice Department.  We have a great Justice Department.  Pam Bondi is so fantastic.  And Todd Blanche and Emil — you got to know him a little bit; he was acting for a little while — and some other people are incredible in the Justice Department. 

    And I consider the FBI to be a part of it, in a sense, and Kash is going to be fantastic, and all the people he’s — Dan Bongino, I love that.  I mean, I love that.  I think Dan is great. 

    I think we have unbelievable people.  And all I’m going to do is set out my vision.  It’s going to be their vision, really, but it’s my ideas.  And basically, we don’t want to have crime in the streets.  We don’t want to have people pushed into subways and killed, and then the — the person that did the pushing ends up in a 15-year trial and gets off scot-free.  We want to have justice, and we want to have safety in our cities, as well as our communities. 

    And we’ll be talking about immigration.  We’ll be talking about a lot of things.  Just the complete gamut.  So, I look forward to that.  That will be tomorrow at the Justice Department. 

    Q    Mr. President, you are a man of peace.  You’ve said it several times and made it very clear.  A man of peace dealing with belligerent people. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    And I’m thinking we saw you handled Zelenskyy in this very own room.  What is your leverage on Putin?  Are you thinking sanctions?  What if he refuses to —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I do have leverage, but I don’t want to talk about leverage now, because right now we’re talking to him.  And based on the statements he made today, they were pretty positive, I think, so I don’t want to talk about that.  

    I hope Russia is going to make the deal too.  And I think once that deal happens, you’re never going to be in a process.  I don’t think they’re going back to shooting again.  I really believe if we get a peace treaty, a ceasefire treaty, I think that leads to peace.  That’s going to really lead to a —

    I don’t think anyone wants to go back.  They’ve been doing this for a long time, and it’s vicious and violent.  And I think if President Putin agrees and does a ceasefire, I think we’re going to be in very good shape to get it done.  We want to get it over with.  That’s why — it was very important what I instructed everybody, including Steve, what we’re looking for: to discuss concepts of land, concepts of —

    MR. WALTZ:  Yes, sir.   

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — of power plants because it’s complicated.  You know, you have a whole — you’re sort of creating the edge of a country. 

    The sad part is that country, if they didn’t — if this didn’t happen — and it wouldn’t have happened — I don’t know if they would have to give anything back.  I guess Crimea? 

    You know, I said it last time, Crimea was given by Obama, Biden gave them the whole thing, and Bush gave them Georgia.  And Trump didn’t give them anything. 

    I gave them — you know what I gave them?  I gave them Javelins.  And the Javelins were very effective, as you know.  I gave them nothing —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  2019. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And then also, if you take a look, I was the one that stopped the pipeline going into Europe.  It was totally stopped: Nord Stream 2.  Nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 before I came along.

    But I got along very well with President Putin.  I got along with most of them.  I get along great with President Xi.  I got along great with Kim Jong Un.  I got along great with all of them.  And we had no wars.  We had no problems.  We wiped out ISIS in record time. General “Razin” Kane.  And he wiped them out. 

    And he is going to be our new chief, right?  He’s going to be —

    SECRETARY HEGSETH:  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — the head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he’s a highly respected man.  He’s going to be great. 

    Pete is going to be fantastic.  I have no doubt about it.  We have a great team.  A really great team. 

    Yeah, please.  Go ahead, please.

    Q    Mr. President, some of our allies have said that they’re worried that they could be the next to be attacked by Russia.  You’ve spoken directly with the Russian president.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you think those fears are justified?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, I don’t.  I think when this gets done, it’s done.  They’re going to all want to go home and rest.  I don’t see it happening.  Nope, I don’t see that happening.  And we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen.  Not going to happen.  But we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen. 

    Yeah, go ahead, please. 

    Q    Leaders from Russia and Iran are heading to Beijing tomorrow to discuss nuclear programs.  What do you hope to get out of that?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, maybe they’re going to talk about non-nuclear programs.  Maybe they’re going to be talking about the de-escalation of nuclear weapons, because, you know, I was talking about that with President Putin very strongly.  And we could have done something.  Had that election not been rigged, we would have had something.  I think I would have made a deal with Putin on de-escalation, denuclearization, as they say.  But we would have de-escalated nuclear weapons, because the power of nuclear weapons is so great and so devastating. 

    And, right now, Russia and us have by far the most, but China will catch us within five years.  China doesn’t have — but they’re in the process of building.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP: And they build.  And within four or five years, they’ll probably have the same.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And, by the way, you — this is a Republican tradition.  Ronald Reagan, when he negotiated with Gorbachev —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — in the 1980s —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — about bringing down the number of nuclear weapons is what you have been doing your first term.  And it is important. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It would be a great achievement if we could bring down the number.  We have so many weapons, and the power is so great. 

    And we — number one, you don’t need them to that extent.  And then we’d have to get others, because, as you know, in a smaller way — Kim Jong Un has a lot of nuclear weapons, by the way — a lot — and others do also.  You have India.  You have Pakistan.  You have others that have them, and we’d get them involved. 

    But we started off with Russia and us.  We have, by far — actually, by far, the most.  And we were going to denuclearize, and that was going to happen. 

    And then we were going to China.  And I spoke to China.  I spoke to President Xi about it.  And he really liked the idea.  You know, he’d like not to spend trillions of dollars building weapons that, hopefully, he’s never going to have to use.  And — because they are very expensive also.  So, that would have been great. 

    Okay, one or two more. 

    (Cross-talk.)

    Yeah, go ahead.  

    Q    Thank you.  We are looking at an impending government shutdown Friday at midnight.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah. 

    Q    Democrats, for 30 years straight, have said, if there’s a shutdown, bad things happen.  Do you anticipate direct negotiations yourself with conference leader of the Democrats, Chuck Schumer?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, if they need me, I’m there a hundred percent.  It’s — right now, it’s two or three people.  If it shuts down, it’s not the Republicans’ fault.  You know, we passed a bill where we had an incredible Republican vote.  We only had one negative vote, a grandstander.  You know, one grandstander.  There’s always a grandstander in the lot. 

         But it was amazing.  People were amazed that the Republicans were able to vote in unison like that so strongly. 

         If there’s a shutdown, even the Democrats admit it will be their fault.  And I’m hearing a lot of Democrats are going to vote for it, and I hope they do.  This is an extension. 

         But ultimately, we want to vote for one big, beautiful bill where we put the taxes in, we put everything in.  We’re going to have big tax cuts.  We’re going to have tremendous incentives for companies coming into our country and employing lots of people.  

         It’ll be — I called it, in a rare moment, one big, beautiful bill.  That’s what I like.  And it seems to be that’s where they’re heading.  And we’ll have to take care of something to do with Los Angeles. 

         A place called Los Angeles almost burned to the ground.  By the way, I broke into Los Angeles.  Can you believe it?  I had to break in. 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I invaded Los Angeles.  And we opened up the water, and the water is now flowing down.  They have so much water, they don’t know what to do.  They were sending it out to the Pacific for environmental reasons.  Okay?  Can you believe it?  And in the meantime, they lost 25,000 houses.  They lost — and nobody’s ever seen anything like it. 

         But we have the water.  I’d love to show you a picture.  You’ve seen the picture.  The water is flowing through the half pipes.  You know, we have the big half pipes that go down.  Used to — 25 years ago, they used to have plenty of water, but they turned it off for — again, for environmental reasons.  Well, I turned it on for environmental reasons and also fire reasons. 

         And I’ve been asking them to do that during my first term.  I said, “Do it.”  I didn’t think anything like — could happen like this, but they didn’t have enough water. 

         Now the farmers are going to have water for their land, and the water is in there. 

         But I actually had to break in.  We broke in to do it because we had people that were afraid to give water.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They were — in particular, they were trying to protect a certain little fish.  And I say, “How do you protect a fish if you don’t have water?”  They didn’t have any water, so they’re protecting a fish, and that didn’t work out too well, by the way.  

         So, they have a lot of water going down throughout California, all coming out from the Pacific Northwest, even some from Canada. 

         Thank you, Canada, very much.  I appreciate it. 

         Next thing you know, they’ll want to turn the water off.  They’ll want to charge us for the water.

         But it comes up from the Pacific Northwest, and it’s a beautiful thing to see.  I mean, it is brimming with water. 

         Now, if they would have had that done, you wouldn’t have had the damage, because the fire would have been put out.  The fire hydrants would have been loaded.  The sprinklers in people’s living rooms and bedrooms would have been loaded up with the — they had no water.  The government makes them put sprinklers in.  They had no water in the sprinklers because they had no water. 

         So, the water is flowing, and we’re going to have to give a lot of money to Los Angeles to help them, and the Democrats are going to want to do that.  So, that’s the one thing different. 

         And I frankly, I think that makes it a lot easier.  But one of the big thing is we have the big, beautiful bill.  We got to get that done.  And that will put our country in a position like it’s never been in. 

         It’s a reduction of taxes.  It’s tremendous incentives for companies to come from all over the world into our country.  It’s great environmentally, but it’s not this environmental scam that we went through — that we all went through.  It provides for everything.  

         It’s a big, beautiful bill, and I hope we can get it approved.  And that will be next. 

         But in the meantime, we have the continuing resolution, and the Republicans have approved it, and now the Democrats have to approve it.  And I hope they will. 

         And I think a lot of them — I can tell you, they want to.  I’ve spoken to some of them.  They really want to.  Their leadership may not want them to.  And if it closes, it’s purely on the Democrats. 

         All right, one more.

         Q    On Korea, sir.  We’ve seen tension increasing in the Peninsula.  You’ve talked about Kim Jong Un.  Do you have any plans of getting — of reestablishing the relationship you had during the first meeting?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  Well, I would.  I had a great relationship with Kim Jong Un, North Korea.  If I wasn’t elected, if Hillary got in, you would have had a nuclear war with North Korea.  He expected it.  He expected it.  And they said, “Oh, thousands of people.”  No, millions of people would have been killed.  

         But I got in.  We went to Singapore.  We met.  We went to — to Vietnam.  We met.  We got along really good.  We had a very good relationship.  And we still do.  We still do.  You don’t have that threat that you had.

         Q    You have talked with — have you talked to him?  

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I mean, look, when I was running the first time, it looked like there was going to be a war with North Korea.  You know that better than anyone.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Tensions were high.  Yes.  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP.  Yeah.  And it started off —

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And everybody was — was startled that you —

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — invited him for talks. 

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  But you did, and it —

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It started out very rough.  

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And he wouldn’t meet with Obama.  Wouldn’t take his calls.  I said, “How many times did you call?” They called a lot.  He wouldn’t take their call.  He told me, “I wouldn’t take his call.” 

         But with me, it did start off rough, if you remember.  Very rough, actually.  Very nasty.  And — 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That was in Singapore, the first one?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, but then — no, before that.  Then it stopped.  The rhetoric was extremely tough.  It was a little bit —

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  You had it in your speech at the U.N. I remember.  (Laughs.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, that’s right.  It was a little bit dangerous.  

         And then we met.  They asked for a meeting, and then we met.  And the meeting caused the Olympics, which was in South Korea, to become a tremendous success.  Nobody was buying tickets for the Olympics because they didn’t want to be nuked.  

         And I met, and not only did the Olympics become successful, but North Korea participated in the Olympics.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  His sister visited.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It was an amazing thing.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And that was something that was an achievement of the Trump administration. Great achievement.  And so, I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un.  And we’ll see what happens. 

         But certainly, he’s a nuclear power.

         Okay?  Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

                                      END            1:20 P.M. EDT

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: March 14th, 2025 Heinrich Discusses Need to Bring Hardrock Mining Law into the 21st Century & Re-Shore Critical Minerals Supply Chain

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
    VIDEO
    WASHINGTON — At a hearing this week, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, discussed the need for legislation to bring public land mining into the 21st century and re-shore the critical minerals supply chain.

    VIDEO: U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivers opening remarks at a hearing on March 12, 2025.
    At the hearing, Heinrich underscored how the Mining Law that governs metal mining on most public lands in the West was written more than 150 years ago.
    Heinrich stated, “Our hardrock mining law remains stuck in the 19th Century, right when we need to build the energy infrastructure of the 21st Century. Updating the 1872 Mining Law could bring public land mining into the 21st century and provide the minerals we need for the energy technologies of today.”
    Additionally, Heinrich pointed out the urgent need to re-shore our nation’s supply chain away from dependence on foreign adversaries by investing in the entire lifecycle of minerals.
    “This includes increasing our domestic mineral processing capacity, continuing the onshoring of manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act, and investing in recycling technologies so that we can reuse the minerals we already have,” Heinrich said.
    Heinrich continued, “The fact that we export copper and rare earth minerals to China in the form of electronic waste is one of the more infuriating realities of our current system. We should be capturing and reusing the minerals present within our borders in devices, vehicles, batteries and machinery rather than paying to ship them overseas.”
    Heinrich also emphasized the importance of securing minerals critical for new energy technologies while also protecting our water, air, and public lands.
    “I believe it’s possible to open new mines while giving local communities a say in whether a particular location on public land is an appropriate place for a mine, just like we do with oil and gas. And I am confident we can find a way to finally fund the cleanup of legacy mine pollution that contaminates streams and rivers across the West,” Heinrich said.
    Heinrich’s full opening remarks are below:
    I’m glad we’re holding this hearing today on a set of issues that are critically important to people and communities across the nation, but especially in the West.
    However, before turning to the topic of today’s hearing, it’s impossible to talk about any natural resource issue today without talking about the incredible damage being done to the workforce that manages those lands and resources for the American people.
    The illegal firings of probationary staff—rumored to be just the beginning of staffing reductions—is already reducing access to public lands, with locked gates and closed visitor centers at parks across the country.
    What’s more, as we’re considering legislation intended to increase mineral production on public lands, this administration is cutting staff and the land agencies that process those same permits.
    With a voluntary resignation offer that encouraged some of the most experienced, highest performing staff at these agencies to leave public service, along with illegal firings of staff who were recently promoted because of their high performance, this administration is crippling the very public land agencies that evaluate plans for new mines. 
    Anyone one who was hoping for “government efficiency” out of this administration can see what we’re getting is government dysfunction instead.
    Now to today’s hearing.
    Modern technologies involve a lot of raw materials—and as our scientists and engineers find new and cheaper ways to generate and store energy, the types and quantities of minerals used in energy technologies will only continue to grow.
    Responsible domestic mining and processing can be part of the solution—but we can’t get there with outdated laws that don’t reflect the nation’s needs and priorities today.
    The law that governs metal mining on most public lands in the West was written in 1872—more than 150 years ago.
    Yellowstone had been a national park for barely two months when the Mining Law was signed, and New Mexico would still be a territory for another 40 years. 
    We’ve learned a lot since 1872:
    How to manage public land for public benefit;
    How to conserve habitat for sustainable fish and wildlife populations;
    How to protect our drinking and irrigation water from heavy metals pollution;  and
    How to ensure a fair return for the commercial development of resources that belong to the American people.
    And yet our hardrock mining law remains stuck in the 19th Century, right when we need to build the energy infrastructure of the 21st Century.
    Updating the 1872 Mining Law could bring public land mining into the 21st century and provide the minerals we need for the energy technologies of today.
    But we’re here today to talk about more than mining, because mining alone won’t solve our supply chain dependence on adversaries unless we also invest in the entire lifecycle of minerals.
    This includes increasing our domestic mineral processing capacity, continuing the onshoring of manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act, and investing in recycling technologies so that we can reuse the minerals we already have.
    The fact that we export copper and rare earth minerals to China in the form of electronic waste is one of the more infuriating realities of our current system.
    We should be capturing and reusing the minerals present within our borders in devices, vehicles, batteries and machinery rather than paying to ship them overseas.
    I firmly believe we can find ways to secure the minerals we need for new energy technologies while also protecting our water, air, and public lands.
    I believe it’s possible to open new mines while giving local communities a say in whether a particular location on public land is an appropriate place for a mine, just like we do with oil and gas.
    And I am confident we can find a way to finally fund the cleanup of legacy mine pollution that contaminates streams and rivers across the West.
    I hope that today’s hearing can be a step toward those goals.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Booker Statement as Trump Administration Moves to Shut Down All EPA Environmental Justice Offices and Slash Dozens of Critical Regulations That Help Protect Public Health and Environment

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    March 13, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Cory Booker (D-NJ)—founding co-chairs of the Senate’s first-ever Environmental Justice Caucus—issued the following statement after the Trump Administration moved to close all the environmental justice offices within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and slash over 30 EPA regulations that have helped protect our nation’s public health and the environment for decades:
    “The Trump Administration seems determined to undermine protections aimed at helping every American—no matter their zip code—breathe safe air, drink clean water and live, work and play on uncontaminated land. By planning to shut down EPA’s environmental justice offices and throw out decades of proven regulations, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are needlessly endangering the health of millions of Americans—all so they can carve out tax cuts for billionaires and let the biggest polluters poison our environment. It’s a whole new level of cruel.
    “Underserved communities in rural, urban and tribal areas already shoulder the brunt of the climate crisis and environmental injustice. These cuts and reversals will make it even harder for these communities to address some of our nation’s toughest challenges, including removing lead pipes, cleaning up dangerous toxins, addressing legacy pollution that has led to higher cancer, asthma and death rates and tackling the climate crisis that threatens our health and collective planetary future. After years of leading the charge to advance environmental justice in the Senate, we’re outraged that Trump and Musk would slash EPA’s workforce and redirect the agency’s mission away from protecting Americans in need.
    “With so much at stake, we urge them to immediately reverse course and prioritize public health before billionaires’ wealth. Making it harder for Americans to breathe safe air and drink clean water is not making America great or healthy again.”
    As co-chairs and co-founders of the Senate Environmental Justice Caucus, Duckworth and Booker have long pushed to strengthen and defend environmental justice efforts across the country. Last month, Duckworth and Booker—along with U.S. Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)—urged EPA Administrator Zeldin to reopen the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), which Duckworth and Booker led the charge to create.
    The Senators also recently helped introduce legislation that would permanently codify the Office of Environmental Justice within the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) in response to Attorney General Bondi’s order eliminating all environmental justice efforts at the DOJ.
    For years, Duckworth and Booker have led the charge pushing for their A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice For All Act—the most comprehensive environmental justice legislation in history—which would help achieve health equity and climate justice for all, particularly in underserved communities and communities of color that have long been disproportionately harmed by environmental injustices and toxic pollutants.
    Duckworth and Booker both worked to help pass the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included Duckworth’s Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA)—the most significant federal investment in water infrastructure in history that includes $15 billion for national lead pipe replacement. DWWIA, which focuses on disadvantaged communities, is helping rebuild our nation’s crumbling and dangerous water infrastructure and enable communities to repair and modernize their failing wastewater systems, with many of the provisions to help low-income communities designed specifically for communities like Chicago, Cahokia Heights and East St. Louis.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Announces $1.3 Million Settlement Against Companies Over Sham Health Insurance Plans

    Source: US State of California

    Friday, March 14, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    Settlement also prohibits companies from selling or operating any health plans in California

    OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a $1.3 million settlement with Sedera, Inc. (Sedera) and Sedera Medical Cost Sharing Community, LLC (SMC) to resolve allegations that they violated California law by advertising and selling sham health insurance plans to over two thousand Californians. In addition, the settlement resolves allegations that Sedera and SMC falsely advertised their sham plans as both novel “non-insurance” medical cost sharing products and as health care sharing ministry (HCSM) plans. An investigation by the California Department of Justice found that because, among other things, Sedera and SMC collected mandatory monthly payments in exchange for the payment of medical services, Sedera and SMC operated health plans. Health plans are required to comply with a myriad of important state consumer protection laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations require that, among other things, health plans provide coverage for all essential health benefits, including preventative care. The products offered by Sedera and SMC did not.  

    “Sedera and SMC were able to sell their sham health insurance plans at lower costs precisely because those plans were a sham and failed to comply with state law. For example, they did not offer Californians the essential health benefits they were entitled to,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s settlement includes not only strong injunctive terms that prohibit Sedera and SMC from marketing, selling, or operating any plans in California, but also consumer restitution and payment for civil penalties. We welcome businesses in our state, but we will not allow them to prey on our people. Lastly, to my fellow Californians: please do your research and first consider applying for affordable, reliable coverage through Covered California.”

    SMC, a corporation that falsely purported to be a non-profit, created, operated, and sold unauthorized health plans through its for-profit administrative vendor, Sedera. As part of today’s settlement, Sedera and SMC: 

    • Will be prohibited from selling, marketing, and operating any health plans in California.
    • Will be prohibited from moving its California members to another plan or directing them to any other cost sharing entities. 
    • Must delete their California customer lists and provide members with notice of their plan termination. 
    • Must pay $1.3 million. Of that total, $800,000 will be for consumer restitution (two payments over six months) and $560,000 will be for civil penalties.

    In April 2021, after receiving multiple complaints from consumers alleging that their HCSM plans refused to cover treatments and pay their medical bills, Attorney General Bonta issued a consumer alert, warning Californians about illegitimate HCSMs. In January 2022, he filed a lawsuit against The Aliera Companies for purporting to be a HCSM. Further, in March 2023, Attorney General Bonta announced a $2.1 million settlement against Alliance for Shared Health to resolve allegations that they offered and deceptively advertised sham health insurance.

    A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the stipulated judgment, which is subject to court approval, can be found here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –